From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 02:16:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 02:16:18 +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 CAA10895 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 02:16:11 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA08619 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA02935 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199808311618.MAA02935@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: Eric Landau > 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. Eric's examples are excellent ones, and I would be happy if this whole area of the law is revised. We could do away with a lot of mind reading (Did he remember on his own or was he reminded?) as well as fix some of the more obvious difficulties. However, I'm afraid it means our present practices in some areas will have to change. That doesn't bother me, but I'm sure some will object. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 03:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:21:22 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11014 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:21:12 +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 KAA27436; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808311723.KAA27436@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Cc: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:20:56 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >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. > Well, the point of disagreement seems to be what constitutes a "procedure," the violation of which is all that PPs are supposed to address. Looking at the list of illustrative violations in L90B, IMO the lawmakers did not intend PPs to be assessed for such things as MI or misuse of UI. We can agree to disagree, and I am interested in what the WBF LC will have to say on the subject. As to the common ACBL TD/AC practice of issuing PPs for harmless failures to Alert, it violates an ACBL regulation, to wit (Page 2 of the Alert Regulation dated November 14, 1997): "Adjustments for [Alert] violations are not automatic. -- There must have been misinformation -- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage." Per L21B1, a failure to Alert is MI. The regulation is nothing special, since it merely states what is to be inferred from L21B: No damage, no penalty. Note L21B3, which states that the TD may award an adjusted score for such MI. It says nothing about a possible PP. "What is not authorized is not permitted." Hence, when an TD or AC rules that a failure to Alert did not cause damage, then assesses a PP for the lapse, it is violating both an ACBL regulation and (IMO) L21B. This did not happen in Case #8, but I thought I would bring it up here because it is related to the general discussion of PPs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 03:21:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:21:56 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (mail.a2000.nl [62.108.1.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11023 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:21:47 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA20577 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:55:29 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980831175415.00926330@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:54:15 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <199808310407.VAA13343@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:04 30-08-98 -0700, you wrote: >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) > > > May i then add a little wish, to ask also before this voting (:)) to get a good summary of pro's an con's and the original problem, so that we have all the facts together (and can perhaps put theses in our own database ore use them for further discussions in our own directors group. I should think this will greatly improve the background and education of TD's that normally arent able to join our group. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 03:44:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:44:02 +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 DAA11069 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:43:54 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-130.access.net.il [192.116.204.130]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA23671; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:46:07 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35EAE211.4A39A37B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:49:05 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all First time I am very upset .... I believe that words, sentences and opinions in this thread - and "Right to appeal" thread are a very huge infraction of Law 0 by the contributors here .... (I don't want to embarrass anyone , but take it seriously ). It is so simple to read that not so "academically morphologic difficult" written words of subparagraph D in L92 - they only let the AC to forgive a player or Captain who needs unresisting to use the WC room exactly when the AC debates the case . Law 92 A is very clear cut IMHO . Grattan wrote: > > 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) > > This quotation above is the most interesting in this thread . The "getting up" Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 06:20:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:20:39 +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 GAA11563 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:20:31 +1000 Received: from default (ptp231.ac.net [205.138.55.140]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA28126 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808312023.QAA28126@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:27:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199808311723.KAA27436@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >From: "Marvin L. French" >Well, the point of disagreement seems to be what constitutes a >"procedure," the violation of which is all that PPs are supposed to >address. Hmm.. I am not sure where you get that idea. That is only one segment of Law 90A which also includes ".....in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants...." There is nothing that states the items listed in 90B are the only offenses that may be penalized. In fact, 90B states ".... include but are not limited to." I consider an opponent who did not correct an explanation that was clearly wrong to have done something is is quite "obstructive" as well as "inconveniencing" There have been many procedural penalties issued for that very infraction and the infraction is considered to be one of the more serious ones. I even think that Law 91A could also apply in this situation. Linda Looking at the list of illustrative violations in L90B, >IMO the lawmakers did not intend PPs to be assessed for such things >as MI or misuse of UI. We can agree to disagree, and I am >interested in what the WBF LC will have to say on the subject. > >As to the common ACBL TD/AC practice of issuing PPs for harmless >failures to Alert, it violates an ACBL regulation, to wit (Page 2 >of the Alert Regulation dated November 14, 1997): > >"Adjustments for [Alert] violations are not automatic. >-- There must have been misinformation >-- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a >direct cause of the damage." > >Per L21B1, a failure to Alert is MI. The regulation is nothing >special, since it merely states what is to be inferred from L21B: >No damage, no penalty. Note L21B3, which states that the TD may >award an adjusted score for such MI. It says nothing about a >possible PP. >"What is not authorized is not permitted." > >Hence, when an TD or AC rules that a failure to Alert did not cause >damage, then assesses a PP for the lapse, it is violating both an >ACBL regulation and (IMO) L21B. This did not happen in Case #8, but >I thought I would bring it up here because it is related to the >general discussion of PPs. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 10:02:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:02:10 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12047 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:02:00 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-177.access.net.il [192.116.204.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA24520; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:05:22 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35EB10C9.7572F0BE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:08:25 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" References: <3.0.5.32.19980831175415.00926330@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton's idea is great ....... I believe that if all of us will try to build it ... here'll be a serious source for TDs' learning . We just must be very concise and clear Dany Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 21:04 30-08-98 -0700, you wrote: > >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) > > > > > > > May i then add a little wish, to ask also before this voting (:)) to get a > good summary of pro's an con's and the original problem, > so that we have all the facts together (and can perhaps put theses in our > own database ore use them for further discussions in our own directors > group. I should think this will greatly improve the background and > education of TD's that normally arent able to join our group. > > regards, > anton > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 10:24:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:24:40 +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 KAA12082 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:24:32 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-177.access.net.il [192.116.204.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA23774; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:02:28 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35EB1007.2385F326@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:05:11 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: John Probst , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" References: <199808310407.VAA13343@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv AGREED Sincerely Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > 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 Tue Sep 1 12:27:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:27:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12248 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:27:32 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zDgD2-0004mg-00; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 02:30:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:59:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <19980831094956.2206.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19980831094956.2206.qmail@hotmail.com>, David Stevenson writes >>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! > > ok guys. GROVEL. You may claim a drink next time you see me. :)))) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 15:59:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:59:31 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA12579 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:59:25 +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 XAA24421; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809010601.XAA24421@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Weinstein" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:00:20 -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 Linda Weinstein wrote: > > >> >From: "Marvin L. French" > > >Well, the point of disagreement seems to be what constitutes a > >"procedure," the violation of which is all that PPs are supposed to > >address. > > Hmm.. I am not sure where you get that idea. I get it from the title of L90: "PROCEDURAL PENALTIES" > That is only one segment of > Law 90A which also includes ".....in addition to enforcing the penalty > provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offense that > unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants...." > > There is nothing that states the items listed in 90B are the only offenses > that may be penalized. In fact, 90B states ".... include but are not > limited to." > Sure, but eight example offenses are listed, none of which hint of MI or misuse of UI. If PPs were meant to be legal for MI or misuse of UI, they could easily have cited an example or two. The eight examples say, "Just in case you're wondering what procedural violations might be, here are eight examples. We can't cite every possible violation, that would be impossible, but from this list you can surely see the intent of this Law." The words "not limited to" do not mean that offenses of any sort can be considered "procedures" to be subject to a PP if violated. They must be of the general nature implied by the eight examples. > I consider an opponent who did not correct an explanation that was clearly > wrong to have done something is quite "obstructive" as well as > "inconveniencing" But such MI is the subject of L40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may assign an adjusted score." I see nothing about PPs in that sentence. Are you and others saying that L40C is not sufficient? Evidently the lawmakers thought so, or they could have added: "If the TD determines that the offense deserves a greater penalty than an adjusted score would provide, or if there is no damage and hence no adjusted score, he may assess a procedural penalty." The ACBL TDs and ACs are ruling as if that sentence had been included in L40C. > > There have been many procedural penalties issued for that very infraction > and the infraction is considered to be one of the more serious ones. But the Laws are designed to provide redress, not punishment, for MI. For punishment, you must go outside the Laws with C&E committees, Player Memos, and the like. Read the Scope of the Laws in the front of the book. Just because something is done a thousand times does not make it right. > > I even think that Law 91A could also apply in this situation. Sure, for egregious infractions that are so bad immediate action must be taken. That is not a PP. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 16:58:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:58:27 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12691 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:58:21 +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 AAA00858; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809010700.AAA00858@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:59:28 -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 wrote: > > Per L21B1, a failure to Alert is MI. The regulation is nothing > special, since it merely states what is to be inferred from L21B: > No damage, no penalty. Note L21B3, which states that the TD may > award an adjusted score for such MI. It says nothing about a > possible PP. > "What is not authorized is not permitted." > > Hence, when an TD or AC rules that a failure to Alert did not cause > damage, then assesses a PP for the lapse, it is violating both an > ACBL regulation and (IMO) L21B. This did not happen in Case #8, but > I thought I would bring it up here because it is related to the > general discussion of PPs. > I should have referenced L40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." Nothing there about a possible PP. Adjust, or don't adjust, that's it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 17:04:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:04:18 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA12725 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:04:12 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h3.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id LAA21904; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 11:06:39 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35EC37B9.F26@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:06:49 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhh@internet-zahav.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double shot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="DANY.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="DANY.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Dany:) Dany wrote: >"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 " OK, Dany. But we have several sources. And one of them is the Legend (sorry for reminding). Every from us was taught - and during that period he learned some thing like: " 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. (Grattan)" The same (or almost the same) words were told me when I tried to learn bridge. And I hope - almost all of the your teachers said something alike. On the other side - we have an official source for legality: WFBLC has rights (and obligations) not only to make the Laws - but to interpret its. The L12A1 says when TD (and AC) has power for awarding the adjusted score: LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. And WBFLC made its interpretation how it should work - Kaplan's doctrine.. For my opinion - it is completely agreed with the Legend and with letter and spirit of the Laws - but it does not matter because all of us should take the official interpretations as additional part of the Laws. If one does not like such position - he should try to organize (in WFBLC) new wording of the Laws or new interpretations - instead of Kaplan's doctrine. >"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 !" But it is illegal because of the L10A and the L72F3: LAW 10 - ASSESSMENT OF A PENALTY A. Right to Assess Penalty The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative. LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws 3. Waiving of Penalties In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8). >And I remember one more phrase from the legendary sphinx: >"A player is entitled to do everything legal to get the best score..." Yeas - but as it follow from L72A3 - one should call the TD whenever any irregularity happens. Not calling the TD is breach of the Laws. It means that not calling the TD is not legal. Moreover: the fact of not calling the TD may even be treated under the L72B2: LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES B. Infraction of Law 2. Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. Not calling the TD may even be followed with PP - but I've never heard about such a decision... Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 17:28:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:28:20 +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 RAA12775 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:28:16 +1000 Received: from JulieAtkinson (p59-max36.akl.ihug.co.nz [202.49.181.251]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA14156; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:30:16 +1200 Message-ID: <002501bdd57a$0b3fd120$fbb531ca@JulieAtkinson> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "Julie Atkinson" , "John Probst" , Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:27:55 +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: Julie Atkinson To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 10:31 PM Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Ooopps !! >My directing skills will be vastly improved when I finally learn North from South, RHO from LHO and clockwise vs anticlockwise. Apart from the bridge table, I very rarely get lost. :)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 19:16:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:16:45 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f122.hotmail.com [207.82.251.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12962 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:16:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 28008 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1998 09:18:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19980901091853.28007.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.87 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:18:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.87] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:18:52 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >As to the common ACBL TD/AC practice of issuing PPs for harmless >failures to Alert, it violates an ACBL regulation, to wit (Page 2 >of the Alert Regulation dated November 14, 1997): > >"Adjustments for [Alert] violations are not automatic. >-- There must have been misinformation >-- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a >direct cause of the damage." > >Per L21B1, a failure to Alert is MI. The regulation is nothing >special, since it merely states what is to be inferred from L21B: >No damage, no penalty. Note L21B3, which states that the TD may >award an adjusted score for such MI. It says nothing about a >possible PP. It does *not* say no damage, no penalty. It says no damage, no adjustment. -- 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 Tue Sep 1 19:30:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:30:20 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f233.hotmail.com [207.82.251.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA13000 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:30:14 +1000 Received: (qmail 12509 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1998 09:32:30 -0000 Message-ID: <19980901093230.12508.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.87 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:32:30 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.87] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:32:30 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: >I should have referenced L40C: > >"If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its >opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, >he may award an adjusted score." > >Nothing there about a possible PP. Adjust, or don't adjust, that's >it. Oh, Marvin! You might just as well have written: I should have referenced L90A: "The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Note especially the words "... in addition to ..." which clearly allows this in addition to adjustments and "... inconveniences other contestants ..." which clearly covers MI cases. There comes a time, Marvin, when you really must accept that your position has become untenable. You are arguing in contravention of established practice and against the letter of the Law. I am afraid that your position is wrong. -- 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 Tue Sep 1 19:45:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:45:08 +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 TAA13028 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:45:03 +1000 Received: (qmail 7401 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1998 09:47:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19980901094718.7400.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.87 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:47:17 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.87] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Double shot Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 02:47:17 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru >Yeas - but as it follow from L72A3 - one should call the TD >whenever any irregularity happens. Not calling the TD is breach >of the Laws. It means that not calling the TD is not legal. Read L9. It is illegal not to summon the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity - but it does not seem to be illegal not to call attention. So if someone leads out of turn, and no-one comments, the TD need not be summoned. Anyway, I hate to think how many times I have broken the Laws since I let opponents get away with everything against me! David Stevenson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 1 20:37:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:37:00 +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 UAA13288 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:36:54 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA01834 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:39:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <35EB1007.2385F326@internet-zahav.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Dany Haimovici wrote: > Marv > > AGREED > > Sincerely > Dany > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > 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) > > > I am bothered by the idea of a vote. The problem is that not all votes are equal, and not all 200 members of blml would vote on everything anyway. Compile the data base of opinions (a blml FGA--frequently given answers?) if someone has the time and appropriate recognized expertise and authority. But we do need to recognize that we probably have a wide range of knowledge and practical experience in the group. We range from Laws commisiion members and international directors to club directors to me. I suspect I am the least qualified member of blml. I don't even have an ABCL certification, and the last game I directed was in 1972. You won't stop me giving opinions, but Grattan's opinions are worth more than mine. -- 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 Tue Sep 1 23:37:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 23:37:02 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f10.hotmail.com [207.82.250.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13683 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 23:36:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 10473 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1998 13:39:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19980901133912.10472.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Sep 1998 06:39:11 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.122] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: BLML TD Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 06:39:11 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Richard Lighton >I am bothered by the idea of a vote. The problem is that not all >votes are equal, and not all 200 members of blml would vote on >everything anyway. > >Compile the data base of opinions (a blml FGA--frequently given >answers?) if someone has the time and appropriate recognized >expertise and authority. But we do need to recognize that we probably >have a wide range of knowledge and practical experience in the group. >We range from Laws commisiion members and international directors to >club directors to me. I would be happy to give my opinion as to what the answers are. >I suspect I am the least qualified member of blml. I don't even have >an ABCL certification, and the last game I directed was in 1972. You >won't stop me giving opinions, but Grattan's opinions are worth more >than mine. ABCL? No comment! :))) -- 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 Wed Sep 2 01:43:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:43:26 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16277 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:43:19 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA06848; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:45:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35EC176B.80CF1075@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:48:59 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy T Dressing CC: bridge laws Subject: Re: Fifth Friday References: <35CA7712.6B66EBBB@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The resuraction is going on (in spite of Wall St. "down...ection !!!!) I believe next time I'll be a part of it with a lot of people (30-40 pairs at least .....) . Dany Nancy T Dressing 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 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 02:07:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:07:58 +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 CAA16523 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:07:51 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA14861; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:10:28 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35EC1D2E.B5861E43@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 19:13:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fifth Friday References: <35CA7712.6B66EBBB@pinehurst.net> <35CACABC.C2A9EB1E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all This reply is to all messages in this thread. 1. I visited Herman's page - great !!!! 2. I don't see any reason not playing this "Friday" from Thursday until Saturday - anyway there are up to 24 hours gaps between our clubs. 3. Please publish the exact day of SS-Finland , in order to bring in as many clubs as i can . DANY P.S. The natural last letter in my name is Y ........ well I don't need to add it for my nickname, klickname or cheekname .....! Herman De Wael wrote: > > 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 Wed Sep 2 02:12:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:12:20 +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 CAA16544 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:12:15 +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 JAA00875; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809011614.JAA00875@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:12:22 -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: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > > >As to the common ACBL TD/AC practice of issuing PPs for harmless > >failures to Alert, it violates an ACBL regulation, to wit (Page 2 > >of the Alert Regulation dated November 14, 1997): > > > >"Adjustments for [Alert] violations are not automatic. > >-- There must have been misinformation > >-- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a > >direct cause of the damage." > > > >Per L21B1, a failure to Alert is MI. The regulation is nothing > >special, since it merely states what is to be inferred from L21B: > >No damage, no penalty. Note L21B3, which states that the TD may > >award an adjusted score for such MI. It says nothing about a > >possible PP. > > It does *not* say no damage, no penalty. It says no damage, no > adjustment. > Ouch, another huge goof. Since an adjustment seems to always reduce the OS's score, my mind often equates it with being a penalty, which it is not. The Laws seek to provide redress, not to penalize, as the Scope of the Laws says. Another goof is that I should have referenced L40C in regard to this subject. Now, what about the main issue? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 02:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:29:52 +1000 Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA16598 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:29:46 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 3HSBa26915 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9680789f.35ec217d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:31:57 EDT To: Bridge-Laws@Octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 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 9/1/98 6:11:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bluejak666@hotmail.com writes: << Oh, Marvin! You might just as well have written: I should have referenced L90A: "The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Note especially the words "... in addition to ..." which clearly allows this in addition to adjustments and "... inconveniences other contestants ..." which clearly covers MI cases. There comes a time, Marvin, when you really must accept that your position has become untenable. You are arguing in contravention of established practice and against the letter of the Law. I am afraid that your position is wrong. >> In a message dated 9/1/98 6:11:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bluejak666@hotmail.com writes: << Oh, Marvin! You might just as well have written: I should have referenced L90A: "The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Note especially the words "... in addition to ..." which clearly allows this in addition to adjustments and "... inconveniences other contestants ..." which clearly covers MI cases. There comes a time, Marvin, when you really must accept that your position has become untenable. You are arguing in contravention of established practice and against the letter of the Law. I am afraid that your position is wrong. >> I hesitate to express an opinion in a thread I have not been reading fully, but --- I would read Law 90A to be applicable only when the infraction is not otherwise covered by the Laws, and especially giving meaning to the word "unduly." That designation implies clearly to me that this section is not to be an enhanced penalty to be applied to every infraction covered elsewhere in the Laws, but rather to be applied for those situations which involve aggravated offenses or which could not have been forseen by the drafters of the other Laws. To apply procedural penalties to MI, UI, or other situations addressed directly by the Laws which include specific penalties or remedies seems clearly wrong. The application of procedural penalties pursuant to this Law to any offense covered by other Laws will lead to its application to every violation. What is there to avoid this unpalatable extension of litigation in our game? Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 03:39:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:39:47 +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 DAA16804 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:39:39 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25456 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:37:39 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809011737.MAA25456@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:37:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > "The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these > Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." > > Note especially the words "... in addition to ..." which clearly > allows this in addition to adjustments and "... inconveniences other > contestants ..." which clearly covers MI cases. [This was David Stevenson, I think.] > I hesitate to express an opinion in a thread I have not been reading fully, > but --- > > I would read Law 90A to be applicable only when the infraction is not > otherwise covered by the Laws, and especially giving meaning to the word > "unduly." That designation implies clearly to me that this section is not to > be an enhanced penalty to be applied to every infraction covered elsewhere in > the Laws, but rather to be applied for those situations which involve > aggravated offenses or which could not have been forseen by the drafters of > the other Laws. > > To apply procedural penalties to MI, UI, or other situations addressed > directly by the Laws which include specific penalties or remedies seems > clearly wrong. > > The application of procedural penalties pursuant to this Law to any offense > covered by other Laws will lead to its application to every violation. What > is there to avoid this unpalatable extension of litigation in our game? > > Craig Hemphill > Those who favor the use of PP's in this situation have not, I think, suficiently clarified their position. I don't wish to speak for them, but I think the view is this: PP's should not be used for ordinary infractions--MI, making bids that might have been suggested by UI, etc. As Craig H and Marvin F have argued, there are already laws in the FLB designed to handle those situations, and to assign PP's as well as [or in addition to] such adjustments is unwarranted. But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their experience level they clearly should have known better. To give a PP for MI is obviously inappropriate--but to give a PP to an experienced player who knows his partner's explanation is incorrect but fails to correct it before the opening lead is not. Giving a PP for failing to alert a bid is inappropriate--unless, for example, the player has been repeatedly reminded to do so and continue to neglect it. There should be no PP's for giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an LA], but an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" before his opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. In short, PP's are not used in such cases _to penalize the infraction per se_, but rather to serve as a pointed reminder to experienced players who have committed an infraction they clearly should have known better than to commit. In the specific example of this case, the PP was _not_ given for the mistaken explanation [an ordinary infraction, for which a PP is obviously not appropriate in this case] but rather because a player in a fairly high-level event neglected to correct that mistaken explanation before the opening lead. The TD judged that in an event of that level the player should have known better, and assigned a PP for that which was _separate from_ the question of whether an adjustment was in order. The AC, apparently, concurred with that judgement. Failing to follow the rules in situations like this, by players who clearly should have known better, delays and obstructs the game and inconveniences people. {If other who favor the use of PP's in such situations had a different justification in mind, I welcome corrections.} -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu [This should not be construed as defending those who routinely issue PP's in cases where the law allows no adjustment, simply in order to penalize the infraction--i.e., "making that bid caused no damage, so the OS gets to keep their top, so I'll penalize them 3 IMPs".] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 03:55:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:55:15 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f125.hotmail.com [207.82.251.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16914 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 03:55:10 +1000 Received: (qmail 12381 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1998 17:57:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19980901175726.12380.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:57:25 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: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:57:25 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: RCraigH@aol.com >I would read Law 90A to be applicable only when the infraction is not >otherwise covered by the Laws, and especially giving meaning to the >word >"unduly." That designation implies clearly to me that this section >is not to >be an enhanced penalty to be applied to every infraction covered >elsewhere in >the Laws, but rather to be applied for those situations which involve >aggravated offenses or which could not have been forseen by the >drafters of >the other Laws. > >To apply procedural penalties to MI, UI, or other situations >addressed >directly by the Laws which include specific penalties or remedies >seems >clearly wrong. This is not what the Law says. >The application of procedural penalties pursuant to this Law to any >offense >covered by other Laws will lead to its application to every >violation. Why? > What >is there to avoid this unpalatable extension of litigation in our >game? Good Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees? The only question in this thread has been whether it is legal for PPs to be issued in such circumstances. They are. I am not suggesting for a moment that PPs should always be issued, whether as fines or warnings. It is not a suggestion that TDs or ACs should go mad. -- 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 Wed Sep 2 04:11:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:11:31 +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 EAA16956 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:11:26 +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 OAA03724 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809011814.OAA15934@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199809011737.MAA25456@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> (cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu) Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling writes: > PP's should not be used for ordinary infractions--MI, making bids > that might have been suggested by UI, etc. As Craig H and Marvin F have > argued, there are already laws in the FLB designed to handle those > situations, and to assign PP's as well as [or in addition to] such > adjustments is unwarranted. > But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the > players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their experience > level they clearly should have known better. > There should be no PP's for > giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an LA], but > an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" before his > opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. I agree, with the exception that the PP should be given to a player who makes the bid suggested by UI when he should have known better (hesitation Blackwood, making a bid which would be impossible except for partner's incorrect explanation). When the UI is reasonably in dispute, or when the offender chooses the wrong LA, there should be no penalty. But a good player who opens a weak 2D, hears partner explain it as Flannery and respond 2H, and then bids 3D rather than 3H with three-card support, should be penalized. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 06:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:59:58 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17548 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:59:52 +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 OAA02158; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809012102.OAA02158@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:59:21 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > >I should have referenced L40C: > > > >"If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its > >opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, > >he may award an adjusted score." > > > >Nothing there about a possible PP. Adjust, or don't adjust, that's > >it. > > Oh, Marvin! You might just as well have written: > > I should have referenced L90A: > > "The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these > Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." > > Note especially the words "... in addition to ..." which clearly > allows this in addition to adjustments and "... inconveniences other > contestants ..." which clearly covers MI cases. See my response to Linda Weinstein's similar comments. The lawmakers were afraid that L90A might be applied to any sort of offense through sophistic reasoning, so in L90B they carefully provided eight examples of offenses that are subject to penalty, in an apparently vain attempt to clarify the intent of L90. None of those examples has anything to do with bidding or play infractions, which would have been easy to include. Bent on complete(?) clarification, they even added parenthetical examples to Offense No. 7, making it clear that it was aimed at mechanical procedures, not bidding procedures: 7. Errors in Procedure any error in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.)... > There comes a time, Marvin, when you really must accept that your > position has become untenable. You are arguing in contravention of > established practice and against the letter of the Law. I am afraid > that your position is wrong. > Gee, I was just about to say the same thing to you, David, with a slight revision: You are arguing in favor of an incorrectly established practice and against the letter of the law. Resorting to illegal artificial scores and mixed artificial-assigned scores is also an established practice. That doesn't make it right. It seems obvious to me that L90 must not be used to supplement the laws that deal with bidding irregularities. Its purpose is to cover the sort of procedural violations not addressed by the lower-numbered laws. Let's see what the WBF LC has to say on this subject. I'll abide by that, and hope everyone will do so in the same spirit that has been shown in the general acceptance of the WBF LC as the final authority for interpreting the Laws. (Maybe "general" is the wrong word, as there are many jurisdictions that are silent on the subject.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 08:20:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:20:15 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17824 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:20:09 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA28047 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA03932 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:22:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809012222.SAA03932@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let's go back to an earlier thread. I have been meaning to send comments for some while, but now is a good time because we have come at the same subject from a different angle. > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:09:19 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > Why do we issue Procedural Penalties in the form of fines? Or warnings? I don't think there is much difference in the principles. It is mainly a matter of whether there are specific regulations requiring fines, and if not, what the TD/AC judge will be more effective. The rest of David's comments are abridged: > The reason to issue PPs is so as to persuade players to follow > procedure in future. It is because it seems the best method of making > the game as enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. So PP's are educational or perhaps an aid to memory. Putting the above into other words, just to make sure I understand it (and David will, I hope, tell us if I have misunderstood), you issue a PP: 1. when there has been a breach of proper procedure, and 2. you believe it likely to be repeated absent a PP, and 3. you believe it (much) less likely to be repeated if you assign a PP. The last requirement eliminates PP's for the normal sorts of careless offenses like revokes and leads out of turn. Nobody does those with any thought, and assigning a PP isn't going to make future offenses less likely. But if someone revokes because he is also trying to talk on his cell phone, a PP might be just the thing to remind him of L74B1. I would add to David's list that you only give a PP if: 4. you think the offender ought to have known better. For example, you normally would give a PP for moving to the wrong table, but you might waive it if the tables were set up in a misleading order. Getting back to our Chicago situation, a player gave MI, and his partner failed (as declarer) to correct the MI before the opening lead. All of David's conditions seem to be present, and (in a reasonably high level event) so is my number 4. Yet I don't think you would consider a PP in a novice game, so condition 4 is probably a valid requirement. Anyway, it seems unfair to give a penalty (as opposed to score adjustment) when a player could not reasonably be expected to realize he was doing something wrong. > I believe that when a TD or AC decides to issue a PP, and when they > decide whether it should be a warning or a fine, and how much a fine > should be, the last thing in their minds should be some abstract notion > of absolute justice. The greater good of the game of bridge and its > players would be a far preferable basis for deciding these matters. That may be going a little far, but I can understand the sentiment. As a practical matter, it can hardly be good for bridge to fine players in a manner that seems unfair. This is a further argument for condition 4. > I am happy with an approach that fines are given in situations where > trouble has been caused by a failure to follow procedure, but that > there is no damage ensuing. OK. The conditions above seem to cover this. > I am happy that when damage results in an > adjustment against the Os that there is no need to fine because the > adjustment will act as a deterrent against a repetition of the offence. This _may_ work if there is only one offense. On the other hand, certain flagrant violations may not be sufficiently deterred by a mere adjustment. Let's say partner makes UI available. If one follows the laws, one almost certainly gets a poor score, perhaps a zero. If one takes the alternative suggested by the UI (perhaps convincing oneself that one would certainly have done it anyway), the _worst_ that can happen, absent a PP, is that a good score is taken away. (Yes, there's a small L12 complication here, but let's not worry about it.) The worst case is no worse than the zero a law-abiding player would expect, and it might not be sufficient to deter an unscrupulous or even an indifferent player. Add a PP, and the balance of risk and reward changes. Even the unscrupulous will be deterred. Does this mean one should assign a PP for every use of UI? Of course not! The conditions above are not met. In the first place, if there is a subtle question of LA's or suggested over another, the violation is unlikely to be repeated even without a PP. In the second place, the "ought to have known better" test isn't met. For a flagrant violation, though, the conditions apply, and a PP seems right. Further, consider that there might be _two_ violations, as in the case from Chicago. There was the initial MI, for which there was a score adjustment, and there was also a failure to correct it, _a separate infraction_. The separate infraction didn't cause damage, but a PP may still be appropriate. Technically, the L75D footnote says "should," which implies that a PP will seldom be given, but in a high level match, players are supposed to meet more than a minimum standard. And all the conditions above seem to be met. For the above reasons, I have to disagree with David on the last point. It seems to me that PP's and score adjustment serve different purposes and ought to be considered separately. If there is damage from an irregularity, adjust the score (unless there is a specific reason not to do so). If the four conditions above are met, issue a PP. Of course it will be harder to meet condition 2 (repeat violations likely) if there is a score adjustment, but it is still quite possible. Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PP's for what would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the "violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed. Given both the custom and the apparent wisdom of PP's in situations like the above, I am quite happy to read the law as allowing them. (This does NOT justify using PP's as a substitute for a split score under L12. As I say, the PP issues and the score adjustment issues should be treated separately, and if L12 calls for a split score, so be it.) All this is much longer than I intended, but the use PP's is an important question. Are the four conditions above a reasonable summary, or do they need to be modified? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 10:21:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:21:39 +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 KAA18154 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:21:34 +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 RAA25253 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809020023.RAA25253@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:21:44 -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 Grant Sterling wrote: > > Those who favor the use of PP's in this situation have not, I > think, suficiently clarified their position. I don't wish to speak for > them, but I think the view is this: > > PP's should not be used for ordinary infractions--MI, making bids > that might have been suggested by UI, etc. As Craig H and Marvin F have > argued, there are already laws in the FLB designed to handle those > situations, and to assign PP's as well as [or in addition to] such > adjustments is unwarranted. Hear, hear! but (not to put words in your mouth) I think you mean "in lieu of" rather than "as well as," which looks synonymous with "[in additon to]" I do not believe this is "the view," which seems to be more extreme. > But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the > players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their experience > level they clearly should have known better. To give a PP for MI is > obviously inappropriate--but to give a PP to an experienced player who > knows his partner's explanation is incorrect but fails to correct it before > the opening lead is not. There are other laws for dealing with MI, whether corrected at the right time, the wrong time, or never. > Giving a PP for failing to alert a bid is > inappropriate--unless, for example, the player has been repeatedly > reminded to do so and continue to neglect it. Failing to follow the TD's instructions by repeating a violation that he has warned against is indeed proper grounds for a PP, per Item 8, Failure to Comply, of L90B. No argument there. More serious violations of instructions might suggest C&E committee action, or even application of L91. > There should be no PP's for > giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an LA], but > an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" before his > opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. That UI would be handled by L16, a stern lecture, banishment, C&E procedures, or whatever. It's not grounds for a PP. > In short, PP's are not used in such cases _to penalize the > infraction per se_, but rather to serve as a pointed reminder to > experienced players who have committed an infraction they clearly should > have known better than to commit. In the specific example of this case, > the PP was _not_ given for the mistaken explanation [an ordinary > infraction, for which a PP is obviously not appropriate in this case] but > rather because a player in a fairly high-level event neglected to correct > that mistaken explanation before the opening lead. The TD judged that in > an event of that level the player should have known better, and assigned a > PP for that which was _separate from_ the question of whether an > adjustment was in order. The AC, apparently, concurred with that > judgement. Well, we on the other side point to the Scope of the Laws, which says "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." While the lawmakers had to give TDs the power to penalize the sort of mechanical irregularities and misbehavior described in L90B, they obviously did not intend that L90 intrude into matters of *bridge,* which are the purview of lower-numbered laws. > Failing to follow the rules in situations like this, by players > who clearly should have known better, delays and obstructs the game and > inconveniences people. This sort of thinking is what the lawmakers evidently had in mind when they wrote L90B to clarify what sort of offenses they had in mind. I see nothing in L90B that hints of using L90 to deal with MI or misuse of UI, or failing to perform a prescribed *bridge* action at the right time (e.g., correct a revoke, correct a lead OOT, correct partner's MI). > {If other who favor the use of PP's in such situations had a > different justification in mind, I welcome corrections.} ACBL TDs and ACs seem to have this justification: "If the Laws don't punish, or don't punish sufficiently, we will!" > This should not be construed as defending those who routinely > issue PP's in cases where the law allows no adjustment, simply in order to > penalize the infraction--i.e., "making that bid caused no damage, so the > OS gets to keep their top, so I'll penalize them 3 IMPs".] Which is exactly what is happening. As for punishing apparently intentional irregularities with PPs, I'll add the following: The Laws assume that the game is played by honorable people. Here's how the Laws of Contract Bridge (rubber bridge) puts it: "The Laws are not designed to prevent dishonorable practices and there are no penalties to cover intentional violations. In the absence of penalty, moral obligations are strongest. Ostracism is the ultimate remedy for intentional offenses." There is no hint of reducing the score of someone who misbehaves in a way that is not penalized sufficiently by the Laws, and the same principle surely applies to duplicate bridge. Penalties for misbehavior not covered by the Laws should not be implemented by changing legal scores. For gross cheating, you throw the bum out of the rubber bridge club and don't pay his winnings. In a duplicate game, you apply L91 and disqualify the culprit. Short of that, the Laws do not address C&E matters, which means they should be handled outside the game, not within the game. Now, I almost burned the taco meat! And this morning I was 20 minutes late picking up my aunt and uncle to take them to the airport, all because of Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8. Told them my car wouldn't start. Now, let's see what else is in the in-box. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 10:28:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:28:15 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18202 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:28:10 +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 RAA25963; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809020029.RAA25963@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:28:06 -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 Grabiner writes: > Grant Sterling writes: > > > PP's should not be used for ordinary infractions--MI, making bids > > that might have been suggested by UI, etc. As Craig H and Marvin F have > > argued, there are already laws in the FLB designed to handle those > > situations, and to assign PP's as well as [or in addition to] such > > adjustments is unwarranted. > > But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the > > players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their experience > > level they clearly should have known better. > > > There should be no PP's for > > giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an LA], but > > an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" before his > > opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. > > I agree, with the exception that the PP should be given to a player who > makes the bid suggested by UI when he should have known better > (hesitation Blackwood, making a bid which would be impossible except for > partner's incorrect explanation). When the UI is reasonably in dispute, > or when the offender chooses the wrong LA, there should be no penalty. > But a good player who opens a weak 2D, hears partner explain it as > Flannery and respond 2H, and then bids 3D rather than 3H with three-card > support, should be penalized. But there are laws that redress any damage caused thereby. The Laws do not deal with intentional violations, which are to be dealt with outside the game, not within the game. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 10:44:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:44:17 +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 KAA18245 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:44:11 +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 RAA27534; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809020046.RAA27534@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:44:56 -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 Steve Willner writes: (big snip) > > Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PP's for what > would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be > tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the > "violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed. But it was narrowed by the lawmakers, who went to the trouble of giving eight examples of offenses that would qualify for a PP under L90. They were obviously worried about broad interpretations of L90A, and wrote L90B to ward off the BLs. Take a look at those eight examples. Do you see anything remotely concerned with MI, misuse of UI, or other violations that fall under the purview of lower-numbered laws? No, you don't. All you see are mechanical irregularities and inappropriate behavior, nothing that concerns *bridge*. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 18:24:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:24:41 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18943 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:24:33 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-185.access.net.il [192.116.204.185]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id LAA17995; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:27:10 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35ED0218.2D190194@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 11:30:16 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Linda , Anton , Rich and all of us I want to make clear my position , based on my Laws- Law 0 and Law 99. BLML shouldn't be a lobbistic or pressure group - just a serious group discussing general issues dealing with laws' implementations and asking for help or opinion about concrete cases. The Lawmakers have their "raison d'etre" from two sources : ....a) The players (of course top level )telling them how the laws .......influence the play , the sporting spirit, the joy etc...(LAW 0) ....b) The TDs ,telling them how do they implement the rules , the .......troubles & difficulties & influences & etc , bringing a hugh .......bag with examples of rulings ..........(LAW 99 ). I think that BLML role should be a discussion group with 2 aims : 1) Being a stage for TDs and players to discuss Laws' issues. 2) Let TDs to exchange information and knowledge , helping them to improve their activities as TD .... I recognize a lot of National and international TDs on this list and I think that we can be an useful "instrument" for the Laws committees (WBF , Zone and Nat.) to organize materials - cases, papers, opinions etc. - to help them . This is why i suggested to "elect" ??? some 5-7 people who will put in a clear and concise way the majority's opinion for each issue. They will appear in a public site (David's web page or Herman's or any other host who will agree.....) I would like to see your comments to this proposal. Dany Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > Marv > > > > AGREED > > > > Sincerely > > Dany > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > I am bothered by the idea of a vote. The problem is that not all votes > are equal, and not all 200 members of blml would vote on everything > anyway. > > Compile the data base of opinions (a blml FGA--frequently given answers?) > if someone has the time and appropriate recognized expertise and > authority. But we do need to recognize that we probably have a wide range > of knowledge and practical experience in the group. We range from Laws > commisiion members and international directors to club directors to me. ... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 21:23:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:23:54 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19210 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:23:47 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA08133; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:26:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01729; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:26:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19498; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:26:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:26:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809021126.MAA19498@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced 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 > I was troubled by this -- I thought I had read somewhere a prohibition from psyching when partner is silenced. All I could find was the EBL guide (to the _1987_ laws) which was concerned with a psyche by a player (South) following an POOT before any player had bid by North at South's first turn to call. If such a psyche damaged EW then the EBL guide recommended that the TD adjust under L23B. [ In 1987 laws, L23B allowed adjustment without "could have known". ] I suspect that there are other references to "problems" with psyches when partner is silenced -- but I can't find them. We now longer have L23B, so I guess we need "could have known" before we adjust for damaging psyches when partner is silenced. I am sure its right to record this sort of incident. For one thing, if this tactic proved too successful there might be a case for changing the law -- for instance, reinstating L23B. Secondly, repition of such psyches may lead to North fielding the psyche in the play (playing South for Heart shortage rather than length). In the meantime, good luck to Richard with such coups in the future. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 21:49:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:49:14 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19264 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:49:07 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09039 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:51:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA05475 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:51:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19515 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:51:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:51:46 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809021151.MAA19515@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent". [ Previously the call had to get close to the table -- I forget the percise wording. ] Last night this happens: I am dealer with 4=3=4=2 15 count, I put my fingers round the 1S card, pull it 1cm out of the box and then remember I am playing 5 card majors, so I push 1S card back into the box and pull out 1D card. I thought nothing of it at the time, but today I remember that the new regulations applied. I assume that the 1S bid was not considered to have been made, but how far could I have got before the 1S bid would have been considered made. I guess that once the 1S card was detached from the other cards remaining in the box then "the call is removed from the bidding box". What about if the 1S card was still touching other cards remaining in the box, but the bottom of the 1S card was clear of the top of the box? That would seem to be "removed from the bidding box". In practice, I am sure this is not a real problem and it is best judged by the TD at the table in any given instance. But do TDs from areas where the regulations have (always?) been "removed from the box" have any guidance to offer. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 2 23:06:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:06:27 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19551 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:06:21 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zECen-0005mq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:09:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:47:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809021126.MAA19498@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809021126.MAA19498@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> 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 >> snip > >I am sure its right to record this sort of incident. For one thing, if >this tactic proved too successful there might be a case for changing >the law -- for instance, reinstating L23B. Secondly, repition of such >psyches may lead to North fielding the psyche in the play (playing South >for Heart shortage rather than length). In the meantime, good luck >to Richard with such coups in the future. Indeed this was the point I was making in the paragraph "hand recorded ... " above. Cheers John > >Robin > > -- 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 Sep 2 23:06:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:06:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19552 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:06:22 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zECeo-0006F9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:09:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:04:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809021151.MAA19515@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809021151.MAA19515@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined >most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have >been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent >intent". >[ Previously the call had to get close to the table -- I forget the >percise wording. ] > >Last night this happens: >I am dealer with 4=3=4=2 15 count, I put my fingers round the 1S card, >pull it 1cm out of the box and then remember I am playing 5 card >majors, so I push 1S card back into the box and pull out 1D card. > >I thought nothing of it at the time, but today I remember that the new >regulations applied. I assume that the 1S bid was not considered to >have been made, but how far could I have got before the 1S bid would >have been considered made. > >I guess that once the 1S card was detached from the other cards >remaining in the box then "the call is removed from the bidding box". >What about if the 1S card was still touching other cards remaining in >the box, but the bottom of the 1S card was clear of the top of the box? >That would seem to be "removed from the bidding box". > >In practice, I am sure this is not a real problem and it is best judged >by the TD at the table in any given instance. But do TDs from areas >where the regulations have (always?) been "removed from the box" have any >guidance to offer. > >Robin > At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that the guiding principle was that of "intent". Thus you were "intending" to bid 1S. Now if the bids had been spoken would you have said "one spade" or would you have said "1 .... er .... um ... diamond"? If the former then I think the act of pulling the card even 2/5 of an inch means you've made the bid intellectually at least. Does "remove" include the act of removing? If the latter then there was no intent as the spade call had not been made, but there might be UI. Is this a reasonable UK interpretation, and is it a reasonable international interpretation? 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 Sep 3 00:08:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:08:41 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19717 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:08:34 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA07740 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:11:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA04280 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:11:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809021411.KAA04280@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > But [L90A] was narrowed by the lawmakers, who went to the trouble of > giving eight examples of offenses that would qualify for a PP under > L90. They were obviously worried about broad interpretations of > L90A, and wrote L90B to ward off the BLs. I take the view that L90B _broadens_ L90A rather than narrows it. It also seems to me that an argument against PP's ought to be based on their wisdom, not on their legality. If a TD or SO thinks they are wise, there is plenty of scope within the laws to apply them for practically any irregularity. Either way, we have both made our positions clear. Let's see what others have to say. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 00:27:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:27:04 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22027 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:26:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA07750 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA04317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:29:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809021429.KAA04317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined > most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have > been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent > intent". Is the word 'apparent' used in other jurisdictions? (I haven't noticed it before.) Does its presence or absence make any difference? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 00:32:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:32:37 +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 AAA22047 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:32:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA07782 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA04339 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:35:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809021435.KAA04339@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that > the guiding principle was that of "intent". Oh dear, mind reading again! Can't we do without that? The language of the regulation seems to allow (indeed invite) a decision based on the actual position of the bidding card, not on the bidder's intent. (David and I have had this argument before; it will be familiar to all longtime readers. I don't suppose either of us will convince the other, but maybe somebody else could weigh in.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 01:00:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:00:03 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22173 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:59:55 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA15806; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:02:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA05857; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:02:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19671; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:02:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:02:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809021502.QAA19671@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that > the guiding principle was that of "intent". Thus you were "intending" to > bid 1S. Now if the bids had been spoken would you have said "one spade" > or would you have said "1 .... er .... um ... diamond"? This is the crux of the matter, how do I know (as player or TD) whether my action is equivalent to "1 ... er ... 1D" or "1 Sp.. er 1D" or "1 Spade ...". For spoken bids there is a scale "..." (saying nothing), "1 ...", "1 Sp...", "1 Spade"; where we know at which point on the scale the bid is made: although the intent was to bid 1S. Until the bid is made, whatever the intent of the bidder, he can change his mind and change his bid. Similarly, there is a scale for bidding boxes: not touching a bidding card, touching 1S card, holding (both sides) of 1S card, pulling the 1S card up a little, pulling the 1S card clear of the box, pulling the 1S card free of the remaining cards, holding the 1S card in the air a long way away from the box, putting the 1S card on the table, letting go of the 1S card on the table. At some point on this scale the bid is made, and that point has changed (moved nearer the beginning of the scale) in the last 48 hours. However, at some point on the scale the bid is not made although the intent was to bid 1S. Until that point, whatever the intent of the bidder, he can change his mind and change his bid. We must both determine "removed from the bidding box" and "with apparent intent". If the call has not been "removed from the bidding box", we do not and should not judge intent. Is there a mapping between the two scales?? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 01:24:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:24:01 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA22310 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:23:53 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16758; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:26:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA10988; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:26:21 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19700; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:26:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:26:19 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809021526.QAA19700@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Steve Willner > > From: Robin Barker > > The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined > > most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have > > been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent > > intent". > > Is the word 'apparent' used in other jurisdictions? (I haven't noticed > it before.) Does its presence or absence make any difference? I doubt it makes any real difference. It simply avoids arguments: "how can you say it was my intent, only I know what I intended". The TD is able hide behind the words "apparent intent", saying: "to me, it appears that your intent was to bid 1S" and that is sufficient. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 01:55:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:55:41 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA22420 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:55:34 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18079; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:58:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA15703; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:58:15 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19713; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:58:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:58:12 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809021558.QAA19713@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Steve Willner > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that > > the guiding principle was that of "intent". > > Oh dear, mind reading again! Can't we do without that? The language > of the regulation seems to allow (indeed invite) a decision based on > the actual position of the bidding card, not on the bidder's intent. > I would prefer to avoid the intentionality of this regulation. Surely if the call was not the callers intent they will change the call they have just made under L25A. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 04:57:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:57:54 +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 EAA23392 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:57:47 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA16145 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:59:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Sep 98 19:59 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties 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: <199809020046.RAA27534@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> > > > > Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PP's for > what > > would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be > > tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the > > "violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed. > > But it was narrowed by the lawmakers, who went to the trouble of > giving eight examples of offenses that would qualify for a PP under > L90. They were obviously worried about broad interpretations of > L90A, and wrote L90B to ward off the BLs. Take a look at those > eight examples. Do you see anything remotely concerned with MI, > misuse of UI, or other violations that fall under the purview of > lower-numbered laws? No, you don't. All you see are mechanical > irregularities and inappropriate behavior, nothing that concerns > *bridge*. Perhaps the lawmakers intention was: L90A covers giving PPs for breaching correct procedure as defined elsewhere in the laws. Here is Law 90B to help directors understand things that haven't really been covered that might also be subject to a PP. There is a phrase in L89 that I find interesting: "But the director, in awarding adjusted scores, shall not assess procedural penalty points against the offender's partner, if,...." The obvious implication of this is that TD IS entitled to assess procedural penalty points in conjunction with awarding an adjusted score (at least in individual events). This inclines me toward the broader interpretation of L90A. IMO a TD is justified in giving a PP (calling it a DP if that helps) against anyone who does something wrong when they should know better. I expect everybody but a novice to be reasonably familiar with "The Proprieties" a mere 8 pages encapsulating the whole spirit of the game. Were I directing a moderately experienced declarer could expect to escape a PP if they corrected MI at the proper time but without calling the director - a more experienced declarer would have to call the director. Nor would a PP be appropriate if declarer/dummy mistakenly thought they were obliged to wait until the end of the hand before calling the director. Generally a PP should not be standard practice for MI on its own. A novice however would not even receive a PP if he deliberately hitched with Qx when declarer led towards KJ in dummy - he would relieve a friendly lecture about the difference between bridge and poker, a score adjustment, and a fair inkling of the extent of my wrath should he do it again. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 05:21:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:21:35 +1000 Received: from sxhab.compuserve.net (sxhab.compuserve.net [149.174.177.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23478 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:21:29 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net ([149.174.177.83]) by sxhab.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA12379.; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256673.0069C9D2 ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:15:29 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:56:46 +0200 Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>If the former then I think the act of pulling the card even 2/5 of an inch means you've made the bid intellectually at least. Does "remove" include the act of removing?<< I'd consider a bid made if the caller clearly indicated which bid he was about to make. Actually, even to grip a bidding card without even moving is a sure sign that the player has made a decision about his bid. The decision making process must come to an end _before_ a bidding card is touched. Just my 2c worth, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 05:38:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:38:41 +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 FAA23574 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:38:32 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA07044; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:40:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:40:59 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Pulled both ways by UI Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Partner and I managed to get ourselves into two sticky ethical situations in a row at last night's club game, thanks to a couple bidding mixups. I am requesting opinions as to what my options were / what I should have done on the second of the two hands. I held S:x H:AKQx D:xxx C:QTxxx. Partner deals: Pard RHO Me LHO ----- ----- ----- ----- 1H X XX(1) 1S 1NT 2S 3S(2) P 3NT P 4H(3) P 5H P ??? (1) I wanted to make an immediate splinter. However, thanks to a recent change to our convention card, it was not clear whether 3S, 3NT, or some other bid would have this meaning. So I tried (in vain) to avoid a misunderstanding by starting with a redouble and catching up later. (2) We've never discussed this particular bid before. I hoped it would be clear I had heart support, probably with spade shortness. When questioned, partner said this was either first-round control of spades, or asking him if he really had a spade stopper. (3) After this bid, partner got bombarded with questions again. Now he says he is fairly sure I have first-round control of spades. The auction is consistent with the possibility that partner has Axxx in spades and thinks I have a void; but RHO is muttering so noisily about not understanding our bidding that she might as well have said "I have the SA and you are incompetent bidders." 5H is asking me to bid six if I have the "obvious suit" under control. Now I have a dilemma. In the absence of UI, I think we have a fast spade loser, no trump losers, and a fair chance of a slow loser somewhere, so stopping or going on is a tossup. On the one hand, I have UI that my spade holding is going to be disappointing to partner. This clearly suggests passing over going on. On the other hand, without UI the obvious suit is spades. But partner has told the table we already have spades under control. So I now have UI that partner intends 5H to ask about trump quality, which clearly suggests going on over passing. For the first time since the 1997 laws came out, I felt as if I was seeing two calls both demonstrably suggested over the other. I knew that somebody would call the cops whether the result was 5H+5 or 6H+6, and I was pretty sure they would get an adjustment if they did. Which call should I make? At the table I chose 6H, on the basis that all the information, authorized and not, pointed towards the slam being less than 50%. I almost wanted partner to go down just so we wouldnt have to explain this mess to a director. For the results-mongers: the bidding scared RHO out of leading her cashing SA. Partner drew trumps and started cash club after club after club, throwing a string of spades from him hands... uh-oh... he might make this... but he had one too many black cards in his hand, and gave up a diamond and a spade at the end. Down 1 was a bottom so no-one called the cops. The final ironic twist was that, when we opened the traveller, the field was in TWO LOUSY HEARTS, making five, except for one pair going off one in 2S. Pathetic. Apparently everyone had some trouble bidding this hand. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 07:00:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:00:28 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23880 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:00:22 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 3DNWa02821; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:02:34 EDT To: Bridge Laws , JKINN@mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Unauthorized information vs. system 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 A hypothetical situation: A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit sequence. He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved for "I forgot!!" Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to say, "I forgot?" Question 3: How much will it matter if this happens at a significant time, so that there is a committee, that this "forgot" convention be in written form? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 07:17:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:17:43 +1000 Received: from pm05sm.pmm.mci.net (pm05sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23949 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:17:38 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr18-dialup27.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM05SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #U2935) with SMTP id <0EYO00BXGDWJXN@PM05SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:19:33 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:18:43 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: bidding box regulations To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000901bdd6b7$44f35980$5b1737a6@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 Christian wrote: >I'd consider a bid made if the caller clearly indicated which bid he was >about to make. Agreed >Actually, even to grip a bidding card without even moving is >a sure sign that the player has made a decision about his bid. Strongly disagree. All too often, I see people firmly gripping one bid, then 3 or 5 seconds later a second bid, then even a third, or back to the first. It isn't right, but some people seem to need to physically hold the bidding cards to help their decision process. >The decision >making process must come to an end _before_ a bidding card is touched. Well, that's what the law says. Trying to enforce it is the hard part. During the Summer NABC in Chicago last month, I watched as Becky Rodgers (Bobby Wolff's girlfriend and an top player in her own right) fiddled and fidgeted with the bidding box interminably. Bobby, the originator of Active Ethics, was kibitzing. If we can't get her to play correctly, what hope is there that every Gladys and Martha will fall into line? Chris From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 07:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:30:48 +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 HAA23995 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:30:42 +1000 Received: from ip50.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.50]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980902213328.ZZY3762.fep4@ip50.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:33:28 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:33:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35efb14d.3118243@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809021126.MAA19498@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199809021126.MAA19498@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:26:26 +0100 (BST), Robin Barker wrote: >I was troubled by this -- I thought I had read somewhere a prohibition >from psyching when partner is silenced. When partner is silenced, you have lost just about all of of your bidding system. A psyche is a call that violates your system agreements, but surely just about all agreements are suspended when partner is silenced. If I open 1H out of turn, partner gets banned, and I then call 3NT, is that a "psyche" just because my hand is nothing like the hand that a 3NT opening shows in my system? I'd say no. When parner is silenced you are own your own in guessing what call will turn out best, and IMO it does not really make any sense to label some calls as "psyches". No adjustment; congratulations to Richard for an imaginative and successful call. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 07:31:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:31:00 +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 HAA24002 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:30:52 +1000 Received: from ip50.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.50]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980902213338.BAAA3762.fep4@ip50.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:33:38 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:33:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35f2b427.3848493@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809021502.QAA19671@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199809021502.QAA19671@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:02:33 +0100 (BST), Robin Barker wrote: >Similarly, there is a scale for bidding boxes: > not touching a bidding card, > touching 1S card, > holding (both sides) of 1S card, > pulling the 1S card up a little, Those are not calls, just UI to partner. > pulling the 1S card clear of the box, This is a borderline case. I would probably rule it as a call made. > pulling the 1S card free of the remaining cards, > holding the 1S card in the air a long way away from the box, > putting the 1S card on the table, > letting go of the 1S card on the table. In those cases the call has been made. I read "intent" in this regulation as "intent to make a call", not necessarily "intent to make the specific call corresponding to the card removed". I.e., if I remove the 1S card from the box believing I'm bidding 1H, then it is a call because I intended to call - but L25A will allow me to change the call. If, on the other hand, I remove the 1S card in order to look at its back side to check whether the score for 1SXX with 9 tricks on the previous deal was recorded correctly, I have not called. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 08:44:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:44:14 +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 IAA24301 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:44:07 +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 0zELfv-00085Z-00; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:46:52 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:49:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdd6c3$f097f820$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 It is a worry to me that the EBU directors, who have for many moons been directing BBL events where this regulation has long been in force, seem to be unsure as to how they should rule! Anne -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 1:39 PM Subject: bidding box regulations >The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined >most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have >been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent >intent". >[ Previously the call had to get close to the table -- I forget the >percise wording. ] > >Last night this happens: >I am dealer with 4=3=4=2 15 count, I put my fingers round the 1S card, >pull it 1cm out of the box and then remember I am playing 5 card >majors, so I push 1S card back into the box and pull out 1D card. > >I thought nothing of it at the time, but today I remember that the new >regulations applied. I assume that the 1S bid was not considered to >have been made, but how far could I have got before the 1S bid would >have been considered made. > >I guess that once the 1S card was detached from the other cards >remaining in the box then "the call is removed from the bidding box". >What about if the 1S card was still touching other cards remaining in >the box, but the bottom of the 1S card was clear of the top of the box? >That would seem to be "removed from the bidding box". > >In practice, I am sure this is not a real problem and it is best judged >by the TD at the table in any given instance. But do TDs from areas >where the regulations have (always?) been "removed from the box" have any >guidance to offer. > >Robin > >-- >Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk >Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 >B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 >Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 08:57:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:57:54 +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 IAA24449 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:57:48 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.181 (pool-207-205-159-181.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.181]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22741 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:00:29 -0700 Message-ID: <35EC7AB1.3A13@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 14:52:35 -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: Unauthorized information vs. system References: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > > A hypothetical situation: > > A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S > as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit > nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit > sequence. I played this with my late pd. Side note: If you do it right, it's great. > > He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding > sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved > for "I forgot!!" It certainly can be; I don't recommend that treatment, but you didn't ask me that question. > > Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be > some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. > > Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to > play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized > information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic > wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C > without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning > outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? Well, wait a second. After 4C, responder needs to be able to either start asking or telling. System should allow responder to make lots of bids meaning lots of different things. 4NT can mean anything, but should mean something. I can't imagine playing this without agreements on the next round or two. If you had *no* agreement as to 4N, I'd rule UI every time. Why not 4N as 6-key RKB? Why not 4N as choice of minors? (Surely a logical method). Guessing right that it's natural with the UI can't be right. I'd adjust in a heartbeat. > > Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some > day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have > been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to > say, "I forgot?" No. But, if that's a concern, you should tell the opponents. My pd and I agreed to tell the opps: "It's a relay to 4C, usually based on a weakish minor-suit hand, but it can be some very specific strong minor-suit hands or he's forgotten." But having an "I forgot" bid in place is entirely legal. As to another question you didn't ask, the 4C bid is enough to wake up poor responder; I don't think he's limited by UI. > > Question 3: How much will it matter if this happens at a significant time, > so that there is a committee, that this "forgot" convention be in written > form? Depends on the committee. In a serious event, it may be prudent to have system notes available. Generally, it's a question of persuasion; if you can persuade the TD that it's your agreement that 4NT is "I erred," you win. 4NT should be alerted, BTW. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 09:32:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:32:53 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24925 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:32:45 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA23616 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:35:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > A hypothetical situation: > No it isn't! Read on! > A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S > as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit > nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit > sequence. I play something like this with my son. Unfortunately, bids other than 4C are possible in response to 3NT. We have had "forgets." > > He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding > sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved > for "I forgot!!" > The way we play it 4NT in this sequence is impossible (4D/H/S have specific meanings). When it happens--it hasn't in quite a while-- we alert 4NT as "he goofed." We have yet to have the sequence 2NT-3NT (alert); 4D-4NT. That is a possible response--we will never recover! > Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be > some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. > > Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to > play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized > information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic > wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C > without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning > outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? Strangely, it is _always_ the 3NT bidder who has forgotten the convention. We believe that the 4C in itself is such an unlikely call even without the alert that it would wake up the 3NT bidder anyway. On the few occasions we have goofed here no opponent has objected--after all, we are playing in 4NT when we meant to play in 3NT! > > Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some > day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have > been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to > say, "I forgot?" > See above. > Question 3: How much will it matter if this happens at a significant time, > so that there is a committee, that this "forgot" convention be in written > form? We have it in our system notes. Of course, we never have our system notes with us. For obvious reasons, this is NOT a convention to be played in a partnership with no sense of humor. The way we play it, it is Eric Crowhurst's fault. -- 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 Sep 3 09:42:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:42:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25061 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:41:58 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEMZw-0007lB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:32:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 In-Reply-To: <1162b7f7.35dcfb7f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: >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). I prefer everyone to do so. > 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... In language, yes. Otherwise, no. If the Committee decided that there was a break in tempo then they decided there was a hesitation. I suppose the word unmistakeable is not really relevant. My only point is that breaks in tempo come in only two types: those that are quicker then the normal tempo, and those that are slower. The latter outnumber the former by about 80 to one, at a guess, and an alternative name for the latter is a hesitation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 3 12:14:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:14:26 +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 MAA25613 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:14:20 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA16854; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:16:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Robin Barker cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809021151.MAA19515@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Robin Barker wrote: > The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined > most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have > been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent > intent". Well, how about this? It has happened to me many times, including twice last weekend. Sticky, old cards in an old box. I pull out the 1S card and the 1NT card sticks to it. At all times the face of the cards are not visible to others. I put the bunch of cards face down on the table and shake them a little until the 1NT card is unattached, then face the 1S bid properly and put the 1NT card away. If someone wants to say my call that turn was 1NT, I quit using bidding boxes!! rbo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 12:47:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:47:45 +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 MAA25676 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:47:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA00197; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:50:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:50:25 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > A hypothetical situation: remarkable how many of us seem to have firsthand experience with this situation, isn't it? :) > > A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S > as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit > nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit > sequence. I played this convention for a couple months this summer. Twice my partner opened 2NT, I bid 3NT, he said Alert, and I had to bite my tongue very hard to avoid making a very ungentlemanly remark at the table. Both times I got out in 4 of my better minor, playing a very nice 4-2 fit, and taking nine tricks, instead of taking 10 or11 tricks in notrump. After the second time I said to partner "we are crossing this stupid convention off our CC NOW." Maybe now I will put it back, since the 4NT rebid had no special meaning for us before, and we can put in place an agreement like the one you have below. > > He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding > sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved > for "I forgot!!" > At the table when I had my accidents with this sequence, 4NT was an undiscussed bid. I decided I could not ethically make this bid without having discussed it beforehand, since it had too much of a feeling of "here's a way we might be able to escape if I lok sheepish enough as I put my 4NT card on the table." > Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be > some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. > > Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to > play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized > information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic > wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C > without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning > outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? > See above remarks; however, since 2NT natural - 3NT - 4C should not exist, the 3NT bidder has AI to wake him up, and I don't think *responder* is constrained by UI from the alert. The problem I see is, unless you have an explicit agreement that 4NT means "I forgot", I don't think opener has any authorized basis to assume you have broken system, and would have to try to interpret 4NT as some sort of pick-a-minor or slam-try bid. > Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some > day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have > been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to > say, "I forgot?" > If 4NT is to play, it is not a convention and therefore cannot be banned by anybody. In a theoretical sense, this is a wasted meaning for the bid. In a practical sense, it has its uses, and ought to be lagal. > Question 3: How much will it matter if this happens at a significant time, > so that there is a committee, that this "forgot" convention be in written > form? Putting it in writing can only help you, so you may as well do it. As a TD or AC member, I would have a hard time permitting opener to pass 4NT unless you had some sort of convincing evidence that 4NT was to play by agreement. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 16:13:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:13:08 +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 QAA26290 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:13:02 +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 XAA19191; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:12:48 -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 wrote: > When partner is silenced, you have lost just about all of of your > bidding system. A psyche is a call that violates your system > agreements, but surely just about all agreements are suspended > when partner is silenced. > > If I open 1H out of turn, partner gets banned, and I then call > 3NT, is that a "psyche" just because my hand is nothing like the > hand that a 3NT opening shows in my system? I'd say no. > > When parner is silenced you are own your own in guessing what > call will turn out best, and IMO it does not really make any > sense to label some calls as "psyches". > > No adjustment; congratulations to Richard for an imaginative and > successful call. Well said. Now, does the same principle apply when partner is "silenced" by a partnership understanding? For instance, a weak two bidder whose partner responds 2NT, an Ogust query, must never bid further than to make the reply to Ogust, and must not double the opponents. That is the partnership agreement, fully disclosed. I say the 2NT bidder can do anything he wants, since nothing he does violates a system agreement. An extension of this line of thought may be more arguable. Do the opponents have the right to ask about the types of hand that the non-silenced partner might have? That is, may they ask if he often psychs in the given situation, does he usually have game interest, etc.? I say no, it's like asking what sort of hand partner may have when you are barred and he jumps to 3NT. The principle is that when there is no possible way for a player to make use of whatever he might guess about his partner's calls, he should not have to answer questions about them. This is analogous to the dummy's right to remain silent about plays his partner is making as declarer. If a defender were to ask, "Does he often falsecard in this situation?", you may know the answer but you don't have to disclose it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 16:41:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:41:26 +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 QAA26364 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:41:20 +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 XAA21670 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809030643.XAA21670@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:42:02 -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 Tim West-Meads writes: > > Perhaps the lawmakers intention was: > L90A covers giving PPs for breaching correct procedure as defined > elsewhere in the laws. Here is Law 90B to help directors understand > things that haven't really been covered that might also be > subject to a PP. > The title of L90B tells me that it expands L90A and is not an addition to it. > There is a phrase in L89 that I find interesting: > "But the director, in awarding adjusted scores, shall not assess > procedural penalty points against the offender's partner, if,...." > The obvious implication of this is that TD IS entitled to assess > procedural penalty points in conjunction with awarding an adjusted score > (at least in individual events). This inclines me toward the broader > interpretation of L90A. I think all this means is that when you have to adjust with an artificial score because a board cannot be played due to a procedure violation (ref L90B item 7), the culprit may get a PP but his/her partner won't if not at fault. I don't think it applies to assigned adjusted scores. > > IMO a TD is justified in giving a PP (calling it a DP if that helps) > against anyone who does something wrong when they should know better. > I expect everybody but a novice to be reasonably familiar with "The > Proprieties" a mere 8 pages encapsulating the whole spirit of the game. > Were I directing a moderately experienced declarer could expect to escape > a PP if they corrected MI at the proper time but without > calling the director - a more experienced declarer would have to call the > director. But failing to call the TD is a violation of Law... That should not be condoned in any game. People have to learn the rules of duplicate bridge. I realize MI correction without the TD present occurs even at the highest levels of the game. That's because players were not forced to obey L9B1(a) during their "upbringing." > Nor would a PP be appropriate if declarer/dummy mistakenly > thought they were obliged to wait until the end of the hand before calling > the director. Generally a PP should not be standard practice for MI on > its own. > > A novice however would not even receive a PP if he deliberately hitched > with Qx when declarer led towards KJ in dummy - he would relieve a > friendly lecture about the difference between bridge and poker, a score > adjustment, and a fair inkling of the extent of my wrath should he do it > again. > I understand what you're saying, but still say the Laws cover MI without resort to L90. The principal is stated in a pro basketball dictum: "No harm, no foul." If a player needs a lesson about MI or misuse of UI, do it outside the game, not by changing a legal score. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 19:06:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:06:43 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26604 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:06:35 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:09:10 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00304 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:04:29 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:04:08 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > A hypothetical situation: > > A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S > as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit > nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit > sequence. > > He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding > sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved > for "I forgot!!" This seems ethically fine to me, except that your agreement should of course be that 2NT - 3NT (no alert!): 4C - 4NT means "I forgot!!" as well. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 19:19:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:19:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA26634 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:19:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEVb1-0001aO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:22:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:17:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <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 Dummy? What dummy? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 19:19:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:19:56 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA26641 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:19:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEVb5-0001ao-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:22:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:13:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980824092735.006c6864@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau 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. 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*. I don't agree with this at all. A TD/AC is considering a set of possible occurrences. The fact that one of them occurred should not blind them to the other possibilities. [s] >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. But this is only because you have made a considerable assumption which does not seem justifiable. You should consider all possibilities. Eric Landau wrote: >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. This is irrelevant. We are considering what might have happened if the circumstances are different. The actual event does not tell us that. Remember Granovetter and Tom. They were doubled in 4H, the double was slow and pulled to 4S. They bid 5H, were doubled, and went one down. The AC gave them 4H doubled making. After they discovered that 4H doubled plus one would have given them the event they went to a second AC [no, I have no idea how the ACBL justified a second AC!] and argued that they would have played it differently, and eleven tricks would be a normal result played in 4H doubled. if you look at the hand their case was sound. [For those who like a good, legal, fair conclusion, the second AC, rather than assigning a score, made them joint winners of the event.] Marvin L. French wrote: >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). Why not? Grant C. Sterling wrote: > 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". 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 Thu Sep 3 19:35:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:35:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA26674 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:35:38 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEVqT-0000Ch-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:38:26 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:20:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:20:50 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > When partner is silenced, you have lost just about all of of your > bidding system. A psyche is a call that violates your system > agreements, but surely just about all agreements are suspended > when partner is silenced. > > If I open 1H out of turn, partner gets banned, and I then call > 3NT, is that a "psyche" just because my hand is nothing like the > hand that a 3NT opening shows in my system? I'd say no. > > When parner is silenced you are own your own in guessing what > call will turn out best, and IMO it does not really make any > sense to label some calls as "psyches". > > ######## There is a world of difference in trying to recover the > situation by guessing the final contract with the intent to play > there, eg. by bidding 3NT on a strong balanced hand when 3NT would > normally be gambling, and deliberately psyching a bid where you do not > intend to play there knowing that your psyche is risk free because > partner cannot be fooled by it. In the original example, the psycher, > with a heart void, knows that partner is likely to have some heart > length and, therefore, without the infraction silencing him, partner > is all too likely to pre-emtively raise hearts. Solely because of his > infraction, the psycher now knows that this risk no longer exists and, > hence, any damage to the NOs because of this should be adjusted under > Law 23. However, in the particular case quoted, there is probably no > way that the psycher could foresee the outcome that followed and, > therefore, IMO no adjustment should be given. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 19:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:46:49 +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 TAA26688 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:46:42 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h9.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id MAA28315; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:54:51 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35EEF419.641C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:55:05 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RCraigH@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system References: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) For my opinion: Question 1 - no UI even without discussin Question 2 - such a meaning is absolutely legal Question 3 - I prefer such agreement would be in written form But afterwards I'd like to remind more interesting convention from the middle of 70-th (when artificial systems were in great fashion). Users of such systems - especially of highly artificial - gad lots misunderstanding. And once upon a time there was ctreated the most funny convention: whenever any of partenrs during the bidding bids "3 Diamonds" - it means:" Partner, I lost our agreement at all and I am going rather to pass over your any bid" It left room for part-score in any major, partner maight also bid any game or even make slam try... And it was quite legal - but there happened jokes and even laugh (from opponents) when it was used. But it worked. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 20:11:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:11:43 +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 UAA26724 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:11:37 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h9.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id NAA29326; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:04:34 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35EEF660.2B9C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 13:04:48 -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: Double shot References: <19980901094718.7400.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: > > Read L9. It is illegal not to summon the TD when attention has been > drawn to an irregularity - but it does not seem to be illegal not to > call attention. So if someone leads out of turn, and no-one comments, > the TD need not be summoned. > Anyway, I hate to think how many times I have broken the Laws since I > let opponents get away with everything against me! Thank you for remark, David, but that time you rather missed the discussed point. It was establish in Dany's poast as: players noticed the incident and then deliberate would not call the TD - because they were not damaged by the incident (or did not think that they damaged). That's why L9 rather is not relevant. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 21:47:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:47:11 +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 VAA26892 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:47:05 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA19751 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903074608.007f7100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:46:08 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 PM 9/2/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Jesper wrote: > >> When partner is silenced, you have lost just about all of of your >> bidding system. A psyche is a call that violates your system >> agreements, but surely just about all agreements are suspended >> when partner is silenced. >> >> If I open 1H out of turn, partner gets banned, and I then call >> 3NT, is that a "psyche" just because my hand is nothing like the >> hand that a 3NT opening shows in my system? I'd say no. >> >> When parner is silenced you are own your own in guessing what >> call will turn out best, and IMO it does not really make any >> sense to label some calls as "psyches". >> >> No adjustment; congratulations to Richard for an imaginative and >> successful call. > >Well said. Now, does the same principle apply when partner is >"silenced" by a partnership understanding? For instance, a weak two >bidder whose partner responds 2NT, an Ogust query, must never bid >further than to make the reply to Ogust, and must not double the >opponents. That is the partnership agreement, fully disclosed. I >say the 2NT bidder can do anything he wants, since nothing he does >violates a system agreement. The ACBL published an article or two about 10-12 NTs a few years ago (in the Bulletin authored by Jeff Meckstroth). One of the assertions made was along the lines of: if 1NT-2M is non-forcing and opener cannot bid again, responder may not psyche in this position because system protects the psyche. I may have this a little wrong, but I'm sure I have the gist of it right. (I'm pretty sure ACBL has this a lot wrong.) So, I think ACBL has taken a position in the situation you describe. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 3 23:08:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:08:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27267 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:08:34 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEZAR-0001S2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:11:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:50:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <01bdd1db$b06cb840$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >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? This approach leads to muddled thinking. *Any* answer, right or wrong, that partner gives to a question *is* UI. [OK, not ones partner does not hear: that is what screens are for.] The questions in this case come from the constraints that are put on your actions when partner makes UI available. ------------ Craig Senior wrote: >####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.#### Maybe, but as has been discussed previously, there are certain problems in interpretation of the Laws when a player has both AI and UI that say the same thing. ------------ Tim West-meads wrote: >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. The trouble is, Tim, that you know it is an LA because everyone makes such a bid sometime! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 00:00:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 00:00:30 +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 AAA27399 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 00:00:24 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA29135 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903095929.007e0650@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:59:29 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Lille Appeal case 23 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903074608.007f7100@maine.rr.com> References: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just finished reading Appeals Case 23 from Lille (in Wednesday's Bulletin). The committee consisted of five people, two of which left before a decision was made. There was a dissenting opinion credited to two of the committee members. It seems to me that the decision was based on one member's opinion when two opposed that decision. Is this right? It also amazes me that a committee would use Active Ethics rather than the Laws to determine the outcome of an appeal. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:07 +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 ESMTP id BAA00188 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:53 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgZ-0005tz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:29:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <199808271725.NAA29988@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >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. Isn't that a matter for the SO? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:05 +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 ESMTP id BAA00185 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgV-0005tN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:08:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199809012222.SAA03932@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Putting the above into other words, just to make sure I understand it >(and David will, I hope, tell us if I have misunderstood), you issue a >PP: >1. when there has been a breach of proper procedure, and >2. you believe it likely to be repeated absent a PP, and >3. you believe it (much) less likely to be repeated if you assign a PP. >4. you think the offender ought to have known better. >For the above reasons, I have to disagree with David on the last >point. It seems to me that PP's and score adjustment serve different >purposes and ought to be considered separately. If there is damage >from an irregularity, adjust the score (unless there is a specific >reason not to do so). If the four conditions above are met, issue a >PP. Of course it will be harder to meet condition 2 (repeat violations >likely) if there is a score adjustment, but it is still quite >possible. Sure: but my argument for not giving PPfs with an adjustment is that conditions 2 and 3 are not met. >Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PP's for what >would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be >tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the >"violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed. How about "inconveniences other contestants"? >All this is much longer than I intended, but the use PP's is an >important question. Are the four conditions above a reasonable >summary, or do they need to be modified? Seems well summarised to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00186 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgV-0005tK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:47:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199809012102.OAA02158@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: >Gee, I was just about to say the same thing to you, David, with a >slight revision: You are arguing in favor of an incorrectly >established practice and against the letter of the law. Resorting >to illegal artificial scores and mixed artificial-assigned scores >is also an established practice. That doesn't make it right. Don't be silly. You know that those methods are illegal and there is no comparison. > It >seems obvious to me that L90 must not be used to supplement the >laws that deal with bidding irregularities. Its purpose is to cover >the sort of procedural violations not addressed by the >lower-numbered laws. Since the wording of L90 allows its use in other cases this is not a sensible conclusion. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:08 +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 ESMTP id BAA00189 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:53 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgZ-0005tN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:35 +0000 Message-ID: <3NRwU6AbTr71Ewi0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:25:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809021429.KAA04317@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Robin Barker >> The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined >> most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have >> been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent >> intent". > >Is the word 'apparent' used in other jurisdictions? (I haven't noticed >it before.) Does its presence or absence make any difference? ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent." WBF: "A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply)." Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that >> the guiding principle was that of "intent". > >Oh dear, mind reading again! Can't we do without that? The language >of the regulation seems to allow (indeed invite) a decision based on >the actual position of the bidding card, not on the bidder's intent. > >(David and I have had this argument before; it will be familiar to all >longtime readers. I don't suppose either of us will convince the other, >but maybe somebody else could weigh in.) Perhaps you could explain this to me? The EBU, ACBL and WBF regulations use the term "with apparent intent": are you suggesting we ignore such regulations? Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Robin Barker wrote: > >> The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined >> most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have >> been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent >> intent". > >Well, how about this? It has happened to me many times, including twice >last weekend. > >Sticky, old cards in an old box. I pull out the 1S card and the 1NT card >sticks to it. At all times the face of the cards are not visible to >others. I put the bunch of cards face down on the table and shake them a >little until the 1NT card is unattached, then face the 1S bid properly and >put the 1NT card away. > >If someone wants to say my call that turn was 1NT, I quit using bidding >boxes!! This is a good example of the use of the term "with apparent intent". -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00187 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgV-0005tM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:01:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <01bdd2c2$a705b760$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >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. Considering that we now seem to have a thousand emails every few months, it will not be too surprising if there are a few errors. However, this is the first suggestion I have ever seen that BLML is so error-prone as to drive people away, and if so we should like to hear more about it. It is always difficult to improve something if people don't explain what needs improving. Perhaps, Richard, you could give us a few other examples? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:50:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:50:08 +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 ESMTP id BAA00182 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:49:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEbgV-0005tL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:53:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? In-Reply-To: <199808282313.TAA04444@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >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. Correct: that one has been on all EBU tests for many years. L81C6. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 01:59:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:59:31 +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 BAA00285 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:59:24 +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 QAA15719 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:01:42 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA06882; Thu, 3 Sep 98 16:01:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903160208.00796100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:02:08 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903095929.007e0650@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980903074608.007f7100@maine.rr.com> <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:59 03/09/98 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >I just finished reading Appeals Case 23 from Lille (in Wednesday's >Bulletin). The committee consisted of five people, two of which left >before a decision was made. There was a dissenting opinion credited to two >of the committee members. It seems to me that the decision was based on >one member's opinion when two opposed that decision. Is this right? > >It also amazes me that a committee would use Active Ethics rather than the >Laws to determine the outcome of an appeal. > >Tim Really an incredible decision by the AC, to say the least: Bobby Wolff, alone, deceides against the opinion of the other members to unduly punish a pair because: a) bad bridge (error in bidding) b) right application of law (one player gave the correct explanation of the pair's agreement instead of telling what his hand was!) Difficult to believe this was not a joke to show how far it is possible to go with Active Ethics (and also with the Rule of Coincidence which interfered in the final decision). (This Appeal Case 23 is reported in Thursday's, and not Wednesday's, Bulletin: issue 13). JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 02:15:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:15:35 +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 CAA00488 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:15:29 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22434 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:13:27 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809031613.LAA22434@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:13:27 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Alan wrote: > > > >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. And I certainly have no good reason to question it. :) > >I hope this doesn't leave us too far apart... > > In language, yes. Otherwise, no. If the Committee decided that there > was a break in tempo then they decided there was a hesitation. I > suppose the word unmistakeable is not really relevant. I agree with David that the language used here is confusing. It seems to me that what the committee judged was either: a) There was a 2-3 second hesitation, but for this pair that did not constitute a break in tempo. [Because their ordinary tempo allowed for 2-3 second pauses], or b) There was a hesitation which really did constitute a break in tempo, but it was not an obvious or unmistakeable break, and therefore did not constitute UI. [I.e, partner didn't notice any such break, and so did not possess UI from it.] > My only point is that breaks in tempo come in only two types: those > that are quicker then the normal tempo, and those that are slower. The > latter outnumber the former by about 80 to one, at a guess, and an > alternative name for the latter is a hesitation. I agree, FWIW. > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 02:31:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00534 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:10 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEcKW-0003II-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:33:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:36:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809021558.QAA19713@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809021558.QAA19713@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: Steve Willner >> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> > At the last Panel Director's training weekend DWS explained to me that >> > the guiding principle was that of "intent". >> >> Oh dear, mind reading again! Can't we do without that? The language >> of the regulation seems to allow (indeed invite) a decision based on >> the actual position of the bidding card, not on the bidder's intent. >> >I would prefer to avoid the intentionality of this regulation. >Surely if the call was not the callers intent they will change >the call they have just made under L25A. > >Robin > The question the TD should be asking IMO is "was it your intent to call 1S?", and if the answer is No then L25A applies. The question which I believe we are addressing is that the player intends to call one spade (he might very shortly change his mind) and starts to remove the one spade call. I favour "clear of the box", about 2 inches (5.08cm for the non imperialists) up and not yet fully detached from the rest of the bidding cards. "if it was your intent to call one spade at that time and the card was a couple of inches up form the box then the call is made" is my ruling, so returning to the original example Robin was just clearing his throat by lifting the 1S 2/5 of an inch. -- 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 Sep 4 02:31:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:15 +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 ESMTP id CAA00533 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:09 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEcKV-0003I5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:33:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:40:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" writes >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Robin Barker wrote: > >> The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined >> most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have >> been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent >> intent". > >Well, how about this? It has happened to me many times, including twice >last weekend. > >Sticky, old cards in an old box. I pull out the 1S card and the 1NT card >sticks to it. At all times the face of the cards are not visible to >others. I put the bunch of cards face down on the table and shake them a >little until the 1NT card is unattached, then face the 1S bid properly and >put the 1NT card away. > >If someone wants to say my call that turn was 1NT, I quit using bidding >boxes!! > >rbo > Nope, this is fine, it helps to say "I'm trying to bid 1S" but no competent director would rule anything other than what you were trying to bid. -- 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 Sep 4 02:31:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00546 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:16 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEcKU-00033N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:33:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:39:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <01bdd6c3$f097f820$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bdd6c3$f097f820$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >It is a worry to me that the EBU directors, who have for many moons been >directing BBL events where this regulation has long been in force, seem >to be unsure as to how they should rule! >Anne but the only BBL events I direct are those with screens and I've never been called by the players in this circumstance. There are clearly published bidding box regulations for these events and I would refer to them if I needed to. -- 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 Sep 4 02:31:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00543 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:14 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEcKX-00033N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:33:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:57:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com>, RCraigH@aol.com writes >A hypothetical situation: > >A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S >as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit >nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit >sequence. > >He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding >sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved >for "I forgot!!" > >Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be >some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. > >Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to >play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized >information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic >wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C >without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning >outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? > >Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some >day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have >been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to >say, "I forgot?" > >Question 3: How much will it matter if this happens at a significant time, >so that there is a committee, that this "forgot" convention be in written >form? > Funny. Damian and I play 3S as a puppet to 3N, and we alert 3N with the statement "partner has forgotten the system". This is our agreement, it is in our notes. The point being we are going to implement some agreements over 2N - 3N, but not until we have stopped bidding 2N - 3N completely. It saves explaining the -13s to team-mates. -- 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 Sep 4 02:31:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00545 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:31:15 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEcKV-00033P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:33:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:52:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Pulled both ways by UI 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 > >Partner and I managed to get ourselves into two sticky ethical situations >in a row at last night's club game, thanks to a couple bidding mixups. I >am requesting opinions as to what my options were / what I should have >done on the second of the two hands. > >I held S:x H:AKQx D:xxx C:QTxxx. >Partner deals: > >Pard RHO Me LHO >----- ----- ----- ----- >1H X XX(1) 1S >1NT 2S 3S(2) P >3NT P 4H(3) P >5H P ??? > >(1) I wanted to make an immediate splinter. However, thanks to a recent >change to our convention card, it was not clear whether 3S, 3NT, or some >other bid would have this meaning. So I tried (in vain) to avoid a >misunderstanding by starting with a redouble and catching up later. > no problem yet >(2) We've never discussed this particular bid before. I hoped it would be >clear I had heart support, probably with spade shortness. When questioned, >partner said this was either first-round control of spades, or asking him >if he really had a spade stopper. a usual treatment, directionally asking with enough values to control the auction, which you have, pard shows some spade stopper or another > >(3) After this bid, partner got bombarded with questions again. Now he >says he is fairly sure I have first-round control of spades. The auction >is consistent with the possibility that partner has Axxx in spades and >thinks I have a void; but RHO is muttering so noisily about not >understanding our bidding that she might as well have said "I have the SA >and you are incompetent bidders." > Have I got good controls or good trumps (They could be KQxx with outside values in this auction after all). pard is worried about losing a spade AND a trump, so not about any other tricks. My clubs will come in. >5H is asking me to bid six if I have the "obvious suit" under control. Now >I have a dilemma. In the absence of UI, I think we have a fast spade >loser, no trump losers, and a fair chance of a slow loser somewhere, so >stopping or going on is a tossup. > I think 6H is fairly automatic, and would adjust to 6H - 1 if you passed 5H and that was the limit. If you bid 6H and it made I'd rule result stands. In either case I'd support an appeal, as it's not 100% but certainly a very high figure in my mind. snip > >At the table I chose 6H, on the basis that all the information, authorized >and not, pointed towards the slam being less than 50%. I'm not sure, I think pard has overbid if it goes down > I almost wanted >partner to go down just so we wouldnt have to explain this mess to a >director. I sympathise > >For the results-mongers: the bidding scared RHO out of leading her cashing >SA. Partner drew trumps and started cash club after club after club, >throwing a string of spades from him hands... uh-oh... he might make >this... but he had one too many black cards in his hand, and gave up a >diamond and a spade at the end. Down 1 was a bottom so no-one called the >cops. > >The final ironic twist was that, when we opened the traveller, the field >was in TWO LOUSY HEARTS, making five, except for one pair going off one in >2S. Pathetic. Apparently everyone had some trouble bidding this hand. > > >Gordon Bower > natural justice was served :) -- 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 Sep 4 02:34:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:34:21 +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 CAA00600 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 02:34:16 +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 JAA25931; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809031636.JAA25931@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:33:49 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote in reply to another: > > >> 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 > > Dummy? What dummy? David makes a point that is often missed by TDs in these parts. When a claim is made, play ceases, and the dummy is no longer dummy. This is true even though L68D talks about a claim being "disputed by any player (dummy included)." A local ACBL Associate National Director ruled that I, as dummy, could not dispute a claim made by a defender (who was about to be strip-squeezed by Alice). "Dummy cannot suggest a play to declarer," she haughtily declared. Of course I appealed, and the carefully selected AC agreed with the ruling. After I wrote to Memphis, the TD sent me a letter of apology, which was nice of her. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 03:11:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:11:17 +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 DAA00671 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:11:11 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA11894; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:13:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011704; Thu Sep 3 12:12:44 1998 Received: by har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDD73C.644CB440@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:11:41 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDD73C.644CB440@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jean-Pierre Rocafort'" Subject: RE: Lille Appeal case 23 Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:42:10 -0400 Encoding: 6 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If we are going to discuss it here, would someone please post the case? ---------- From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort[SMTP:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr] At 09:59 03/09/98 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 03:11:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:11:58 +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 DAA00685 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:11:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA24203 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:13:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024051; Thu Sep 3 12:12:32 1998 Received: by har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDD73C.51BD1E00@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:11:10 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDD73C.51BD1E00@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: unusual UI Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:33:56 -0400 Encoding: 49 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Are you saying that the Laws as currently written and interpreted require a player to generally proceed as though his partner has forgotten an agreement whenever questions or proper use of an announcement or alert procedure make it plain that he has remembered it? If you are, do you think that this cries out for a change to the interpretration or language of the Laws? We know that at times the Law IS an A--, but I wonder if we must interpret it in such fashion as to bray. The presumption that one's partner is following partnership agreements in the absence of information to the contrary should be strong enough to make confirmatory UI immaterial, and actions based upon a presumption of "he forgot" NOT logical alternatives. We frequently evaluate LA's based upon partnership agreement and the assumption that it is being followed. Why should we deviate in the circumstance where UI that it IS being followed becomes available? It would seem evident that it is the UI that is extraneous. UI that tells us the wheels have fallen off does delimit us largely because absent it we would have had the same strong presumption that partner's actions were based upon agreement. But UI that tells us everything is normal really tells us nothing and does not seem to make assuming that partner has lost his senses an LA. A basic tenet of bridge is partnership trust. A policy of penalising partnerships for legitimately trusting each other to be following system is perverse and not in the best interest of the game. If you and others more expert than I believe that such penalty is required, then I hope Ton, Grattan and their fellows will promptly set about to change such an abomination at the earliest possible moment. Craig ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:david@blakjak.demon.co.uk] ------------ Craig Senior wrote: >####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.#### Maybe, but as has been discussed previously, there are certain problems in interpretation of the Laws when a player has both AI and UI that say the same thing. David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 03:39:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:39:56 +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 DAA00752 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 03:39:49 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA17181 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903133848.007fa200@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 13:38:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903160208.00796100@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <3.0.5.32.19980903095929.007e0650@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19980903074608.007f7100@maine.rr.com> <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:02 PM 9/3/98 +0200, you wrote: >(This Appeal Case 23 is reported in Thursday's, and not Wednesday's, >Bulletin: issue 13). My mistake. the WBF page that I download the Bulletins from lists #13 in the Wednesday slot, but the date on it is Thursday. I guess it is listed under Wednesday because it has Wednesday's results in it. Anyway, Mr. Rocafort is correct, the Appeals Case is in #13 which is Thursday's Bulletin. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 04:12:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 04:12:01 +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 EAA00834 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 04:11:55 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:14:15 +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 TAA05314 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:12:44 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <01BDD73C.51BD1E00@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:12:23 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Are you saying that the Laws as currently written and interpreted > require a player to generally proceed as though his partner has forgotten > an agreement whenever questions or proper use of an announcement or alert > procedure make it plain that he has remembered it? I don't think that's what David was saying, because "generally" it will not be a LA to proceed as though partner has forgotten. It's only when there's evidence that partner *has* forgotten that not trusting him becomes a LA: e.g., if he makes some bid that seems virtually inconsistent with his having remembered the system. How much evidence depends on the local definition of LA, of course, but presumably you could reduce the number of times it's a LA by having a clearly stated and rigorously followed policy of ALWAYS trusting partner to have remembered the system. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 04:20:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 04:20:00 +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 EAA00893 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 04:19:55 +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 LAA08761 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809031822.LAA08761@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 11:21:18 -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 This thread is a little old(?), so let's repeat the theoretical situation: Fourth seat opens a light hand after second seat hesitated quite a while. A passout would have netted 6 matchpoints. They end in 2H, which would go off one (3 matchpoints), but an opponent reopens, gets doubled, off one (9 matchpoints). David Stevenson wrote: > > Eric Landau 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. 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*. > I don't agree with this at all. A TD/AC is considering a set of > possible occurrences. The fact that one of them occurred should not > blind them to the other possibilities. And Eric Landau was *not* agreeing with me, as I wrote: 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. David snipped this part of my e-mail (which I think is what Eric was agreeing with): HOWEVER, I don't believe that they [the lawmakers] 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. [s] > > >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. > > But this is only because you have made a considerable assumption which > does not seem justifiable. You should consider all possibilities. Also agreed. > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >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. > > This is irrelevant. We are considering what might have happened if > the circumstances are different. The actual event does not tell us > that. > > Remember Granovetter and Tom. They were doubled in 4H, the double was > slow and pulled to 4S. They bid 5H, were doubled, and went one down. > The AC gave them 4H doubled making. After they discovered that 4H > doubled plus one would have given them the event they went to a second > AC [no, I have no idea how the ACBL justified a second AC!] and argued > that they would have played it differently, and eleven tricks would be a > normal result played in 4H doubled. if you look at the hand their case > was sound. [For those who like a good, legal, fair conclusion, the > second AC, rather than assigning a score, made them joint winners of the > event.] > Note that declarer's play was evidently affected by the infraction, if so, the second AC's decision was quite correct. Was that Mr. or Mrs. Granovetter, and who is "Tom"? I am glad to know that a second AC is available if you don't agree with the decision of the first one. That's one I'll have to remember, although the right probably comes only with a well-known name. > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >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). > > Why not? > I thought this was settled long ago. A slam is bid by misuse of UI, and makes because the defenders revoke. The OS keeps its score, while the NOs get their score put back to game, with the revoke still assumed. The revoke was not a consequence of the infraction (despite the NOs' claims that they were upset by it), so the revoke is not thrown out, even for the OS. However, if an opening ace lead had permitted the slam to make, it would no doubt be in order to assume a different defense vs an assigned game contract. In fact, any reasonable argument for a different defense would be accepted, since doubtful points are settled in favor of the OS. In other words, if the TD/AC judges that there is no reason that the defense or play of the hand would differ for a different level contract, then the actual play stands. The infraction had nothing to do with the play, so the number of tricks taken is not adjustable. If that is wrong, then a TD or AC would have to go through all sorts of studies to determine different lines of play that would lead to fewer tricks. First, find the worst line that was "likely." Then find the worst line that was "at all probable." Surely that is not the intent of L12C2. L12C2 has to be taken in context with its referring law, L16B, which implies redress of "damage." If an infraction did not affect the actual play of the cards, then that is not part of the damage to be redressed. As I said, I thought there was a consensus opinion about this matter after some discussion (perhaps on RGB, I can't remember). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:19:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:19:44 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01148 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:19:37 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h11.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id XAA03008; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:22:20 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35EF8713.36F4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:22:11 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 References: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19980903095929.007e0650@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Tim:) You are right - AC made impossible decision. The Chairman overruled opinion of two members. Never thought that it might happened especially at such tournament's level. Does it mean that future AC will be able to consist from one Chairman?:) And that one-man-AC instead of establishing the equity - tried to teach players how they should play (bid). Rather not AC's function. Moreover - B.Wolf overrulled the very Laws - and made anty-Laws decision. What will be the WBFLC words on the matter?:) And one point more: how might it happen that WBF preapared "Condition of Contest" where players became responsible for adjusting the tempo (Lille, Appeal # 22)? I am surprised that only one incident happened. There should be hundreds of them:)) And that player was fined... Dawid, Herman - be so kind as to make the incident clear - from inside point of view. Thank you in advance Vitold Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:27:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:38 +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 ESMTP id FAA01188 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEf55-0006g0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:38:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Hand recorded to ensure that South doesn't do it again with this partner >as UK regulations can treat it as an unlicensed convention. Which regulation says this? - . - . - . - . - . - Julie Atkinson wrote: >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. Hehe. :)) >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. I believe this to be the point of the hand. There is no Law that makes this action illegal, but some people are uncomfortable with it, and it is possible that there should be. > 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. To apply L23 you have to accept that the player _at the time he bids 2D OOT_ expects his opponents to be disadvantaged by his partner's enforced pass. It is not what he expects when bidding 1H, but what he expects when he bids 2D. >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. True. >Indeed Law 72A5 would appear to allow it. True. - . - . - . - . - . - Marvin L. French wrote: >An extension of this line of thought may be more arguable. Do the >opponents have the right to ask about the types of hand that the >non-silenced partner might have? That is, may they ask if he often >psychs in the given situation, does he usually have game interest, >etc.? I say no, it's like asking what sort of hand partner may have >when you are barred and he jumps to 3NT. There is nothing to stop them asking, and you are required to answer if you know. However, having no partnership understanding will frequently be the answer. Do not forget, even when a player jumps to 3NT as you describe, he may finish up defending. Suppose one day you are chatting to your partner about this position, and he says that in his view the odds suggest jumping to 3NT opposite a barred partner with 16 HCP or more, or 14 HCP so long as RHO has passed. If you finish defending you are allowed to use this knowledge, so you must disclose it. >The principle is that when there is no possible way for a player to >make use of whatever he might guess about his partner's calls, he >should not have to answer questions about them. Sure: but in these situations he may be able to use them in defence. - . - . - . - . - . - David Martin wrote: >> ######## There is a world of difference in trying to recover the >> situation by guessing the final contract with the intent to play >> there, eg. by bidding 3NT on a strong balanced hand when 3NT would >> normally be gambling, and deliberately psyching a bid where you do not >> intend to play there knowing that your psyche is risk free because >> partner cannot be fooled by it. In the original example, the psycher, >> with a heart void, knows that partner is likely to have some heart >> length and, therefore, without the infraction silencing him, partner >> is all too likely to pre-emtively raise hearts. Solely because of his >> infraction, the psycher now knows that this risk no longer exists and, >> hence, any damage to the NOs because of this should be adjusted under >> Law 23. However, in the particular case quoted, there is probably no >> way that the psycher could foresee the outcome that followed and, >> therefore, IMO no adjustment should be given. ######### L23 applies at the time of the infraction, ie when the player bid 2D, not when he bid 1H. Of course he knows at the time of his 1H bid that his partner's pass can benefit him: it is always beneficial when psyching to have a partner who will not leap to 6NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:37 +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 ESMTP id FAA01203 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEf55-0006g1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:53:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Controlled psyches MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >The ACBL published an article or two about 10-12 NTs a few years ago (in >the Bulletin authored by Jeff Meckstroth). One of the assertions made was >along the lines of: if 1NT-2M is non-forcing and opener cannot bid again, >responder may not psyche in this position because system protects the >psyche. I may have this a little wrong, but I'm sure I have the gist of it >right. (I'm pretty sure ACBL has this a lot wrong.) So, I think ACBL has >taken a position in the situation you describe. Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass 2C The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the Laws of the game. When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. I think I shall say that again. When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. Perhaps the time has come for the relevant authorities to consider what Law is being breached. Of course there are several cases where a Law is breached. If your partner opens 1S, and with 15 HCP you just play in a nice part-score, making on the nose, you have fielded the psyche, ie you are in contravention of L40A or L40B. If you psyche a Multi in an EBU Level 3 event, where such psyches are banned, you are in contravention of L40D. One occasion does not constitute an agreement, otherwise you would have to follow the effects of every mistake you ever made. When your partner psyches a bid, and you reach a position where he makes an impossible bid, you know he has psyched but it is not in contravention of a Law. If anyone wishes to stop psyches from occurring they need to do so legally. I believe that Grattan will tell you when he returns that the WBFLC re-affirmed that psyches are legal and that they do not support these trivialisations of the rules on psyching. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:27:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:40 +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 ESMTP id FAA01190 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:25 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEf56-0006g5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:28:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Reserving rights MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is a UI sequence that finishes with North bidding 4H very slowly, and South bidding 6H which appears to use the hesitation. The hesitation by North is agreed. The defence leads a card, dummy [South] appears, and the defender on lead realises that dummy's bidding is surely illegal. He must have used UI! However, it seems to be going off: he has led one of his two aces, and his singleton king of trumps looks good for a trick. Declarer ruffs, cashes the ace of trumps, and makes his slam. The defence ask for a ruling. Has the failure to call the TD at the sight of dummy affected anything? Thanks to Antonio Riccardi for this one. He says there is no Internet where he lives so he cannot join BLML - which is a shame because he is a very good TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:27:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01189 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEf56-0006g4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:22:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: OLOOT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads in turn and face down. OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead [L54]. The TD gives declarer five options, and declarer does not accept the LOOT: in fact he just decides to keep it as a penalty card. Back to East. He now leads. Does it have to be the same card as he originally tried to lead? Should the TD check it? Thanks to Antonio Riccardi for this one. He says there is no Internet where he lives so he cannot join BLML - which is a shame because he is a very good TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:27:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:39 +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 ESMTP id FAA01186 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:27:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEf55-0006g3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:15:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25 with screens In-Reply-To: <01BDD12D.480CBDD0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Bernscherer wrote: >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. I think this is a reasonable approach. If you are asked to direct in any event where the SO provides inadequate regulations, taking a set of your own from *any* sensible source is better than not having any. >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). Fine. I assume you mean as a change of mind, not a mechanical error which she could have changed without penalty under L25A. >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. Despite the casual wording, I presume this means that L25A applies. However, the lack of a reference to L25B does not mean that it does not apply. L80F makes that clear [but see later comments on L80E]. >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? Assuming it was not a mechanical error, then yes. The Laws apply when there is a disagreement between them and regulations, except when L80E applies. This means that you could have a regulation that suspends L25B in certain cases when a tray has gone under a screen - but this is not mentioned in the Lille GCoC, so does not apply. >2. Was my decision to tell the player that she cannot get more than >average minus if she changes her call correct? You read out the whole of L25B, and explained it to her and gave her the options in it, of course? >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)? Certainly. Lille GCoC 16.3 makes no mention of changing L25A, and since it does not then L25A applies as written. >Hoping for some good ideas I try! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 05:28:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:28:21 +1000 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01255 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:28:14 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA31314 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:31:00 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id PAA19830 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:26:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199809031926.PAA19830@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:26:32, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Appeal No. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reported by Rich Colker ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Virgil Anderson (USA), Rich Colker (USA), John Lenart (New Zealand), Dan Morse (USA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Open Pairs, 29 August 98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Great Britain (N/S) v Israel (E/W) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- N/S: M. Smith/P. Czerniewski E/W: Stela Sagiv/Lilo Poplilov ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Board 3. Dealer South. E/W Vulnerable. S K 5 H A Q J 7 2 D 6 C K J 10 8 5 S A 9 8 4 3 2 S 10 7 6 H K 9 H 6 D Q 7 5 4 D A K 10 9 8 C 7 C Q 4 3 2 S Q J H 10 8 5 4 3 D J 3 2 C A 9 6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - Pass 2S (1) 3S (2) 4S All Pass (1) Alerted and explained on both sides as "strong" (2) Some sort of two suiter; undiscussed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Facts: 4S made five, +650 for E/W. The TD was called at the end of the play. N/S contended that they were damaged because they were not given the proper explanation of E/W's methods. In the post-mortem, West indicated that he had misbid when he opened 2S, intending it as weak. When he realized his mistake (almost as soon as he began describing his bid as weak to South) he changed his explanation in mid sentence to reflect E/W's agreement (strong/ACOL). East also explained the 2S bid as strong to North. The E/W convention cards had 2H/2S marked as ACOL on page 2. (The section of the front page of E/W's convention card marked "SPECIAL BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENSE" listed 2H and 2S openings as showing five/five two-suiters, 6-10 points, including the major opened and a lower suit. However, N/S agreed that neither North nor South ever looked at these cards.) East expressed surprise at the mismarked front page of their card, reconfirmed that they WERE playing strong major suit opening two bids, and suggested that the error must have been due to their "doing the card through the computer." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TD's decision: The TD determined that the mismarked section on the front of E/W's convention card was a computer error which could not have affected the table result, since neither opponent looked at E/W's convention cards. Since East and West both explained 2S as strong, and since the second page of the E/W cards were both consistent with this explanation (marked as ACOL), the TD ruled that N/S had been properly informed of the meaning of 2S as per E/W's agreements. The fact that this did not correspond with West's hand was true, but irrelevant. West was obligated to explain the meaning in his partnership of his bid and was not obligated to disclose the contents of his hand. The TD allowed the table result to stand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant: N/S appealed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The players: N/S contended that both West and East's hands were consistent with a weak 2S bid, and that this was consistent with the way the front of their card was marked ("2S = 5S + 5 any, 6-10"). If North had known that 2S was weak he would have bid a systemic 4C, showing clubs and hearts, and South would then have bid 5H. They also stated that if West had chosen this moment to psych his strong 2S opening, East appeared to have underbid. In response to questions from the Committee, E/W indicated that they were not a practiced partnership.They had filled out their convention card by starting with one used by their spouses and modifying it using the WBF Convention Card Editor, deleting parts they weren't playing and adding their own variations. They believed they had failed to delete the two suited major suit openings played by their spouses from the front of the card and then simply not noticed their oversight. West explained that when he opened 2S he had done so reflexively, as he played weak two bids with most of his other partners. When he (almost immediately) realized his error he began to explain his bid as weak, but then remembered his obligation to disclose his partnership agreement, and not his hand, to his opponent. He did this. East explained that she described West's bid as strong and, after North bid 3S, she decided that with only 9 points and little bidding room she would just bid game rather than show her diamonds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee: Two Committee members (Lenart, Morse) left the hearing at the end of the testimony due to other commitments (this was the third appeal heard by this Committee during the current sitting) and did not participate in the discussion or the final decision. One indicated before he left that he favored assigning N/S Average Plus and E/W Average Minus. The Committee noted that West correctly explained the systemic meaning of his 2S bid to his screenmate, as required by law, but behind screens also might have volunteered that, "My partner will explain it as strong, but I have a weak two bid," as suggested by Active Ethics. Players using new (for them), complex or unfamiliar (to others) methods have a special responsibility to know what they are playing, alert their bids properly, and explain them accurately and completely on both sides of the screen. In this case West failed to live up to that standard. In addition, while it is clear that E/W systemically played ACOL two bids in the majors and accurately informed their screenmates of this, East's "oddly" conservative 4S bid was troubling to some Committee members in light of West's "misbid." As for N/S, while they would have had a better chance to compete for the contract had the problems created by the opponents not occurred, they themselves had not adequately discussed the meanings of their conventional methods over what should not have been a totally unexpected ACOL 2S opening. Thus, they bore responsibility for their problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee's decision: The Committee (Chairman) adjusted the score for E/W to average minus based on the following: (1) West forgot his methods; (2) West did not disclose the intended meaning of his 2S bid on his side of the screen, as per Active Ethics; (3) E/W's convention card was not filled out properly; and (4) East chose a conservative 4S bid with a hand that warranted a slam try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with East's (conservative) action. The Chairman also adjusted N/S's score to the better of the table result or average minus, in recognition of N/S's responsibility in not having adequately discussed their conventional defenses to the opponents' strong, natural opening bids. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinions (Colker, Anderson): We disagree with the Committee's decision. While it is disruptive and generally not good for our game when players forget their methods, these things do happen. Under the present laws, as long as the opponents are properly informed of the systemic meaning of a player's bid (not necessarily his actual hand) there has been no infraction unless the partnership is found to have an undisclosed understanding, which was clearly not the case here. We also find it likely that West's initial few words to South, his halting speech pattern and sudden change in explanation conveyed to his screenmate the idea that his hand did not match his bid. We would have preferred it had West simply and completely volunteered his error to his screenmate, but the laws do not require players to do this, and Active Ethics is not yet the law. Similarly, we find East's conservative 4S bid not to be an egregious action; rather, we would characterize it as a nonaggressive (perhaps less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. We believe that the problem with the E/W convention cards stemmed from the pair's failure to notice and remove a reference on the front of the card to the two suited major-suit openings played by their spouses when modifying the computer file from the spouses' card. The methods were not part of E/W's system, nor did the presence of the error have any bearing on the present situation (except for the inquiries needed to determine this). Finally, we believe N/S's problems stemmed solely from their failure to have adequately discussed their conventional defenses to strong opening bids. We regret that we cannot find any basis in the laws for adjusting either side's score from that which occurred at the table. We believe that the TDs got this one exactly right. We, too, would have allowed the table result to stand for both pairs and then strongly advised E/W to be more careful with their bidding in the future and to immediately correct the deficiencies with their convention cards. ====================================================================== From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 06:04:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:04:03 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01419 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:03:57 +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 QAA06661 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:06:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809032006.QAA13840@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:22:22 +0100) Subject: Re: OLOOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads > in turn and face down. > OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead > [L54]. The TD gives declarer five options, and declarer does not accept > the LOOT: in fact he just decides to keep it as a penalty card. Does declarer have the usual five options? For example, can he forbid East to lead the suit of West's lead, if it happens that East has already put a card of that suit on the table? I would be inclined to apply Law 58A; East's lead is already made to thie trick, and West's simultaneous lead out of turn is not a lead but a premature play. Thus South must become dummy, and West's card becomes a regular penalty card. If West doesn't play the card, declarer may impose a lead penalty on East at trick two. -- 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 Sep 4 06:46:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:46:24 +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 GAA01620 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:46:18 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA02150; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903164521.007fd810@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:45:21 -0400 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: OLOOT In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >in turn and face down. > > OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >[L54]. I'd try L58A. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 06:52:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:52:30 +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 GAA01686 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 06:52:22 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.138 (pool-207-205-159-217.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.217]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14485 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:54:55 -0700 Message-ID: <35EDAEAB.6471@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 12:47:03 -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: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 References: <199809031926.PAA19830@mime4.prodigy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Hand deleted; thanks to Chyah for posting it. Comments interspersed] > The Committee: > > Two Committee members (Lenart, Morse) left the hearing at the end of > the testimony due to other commitments (this was the third appeal > heard by this Committee during the current sitting) and did not > participate in the discussion or the final decision. One indicated > before he left that he favored assigning N/S Average Plus and E/W > Average Minus. AAH! Don't start what you can't finish. Please. > > The Committee noted that West correctly explained the systemic meaning > of his 2S bid to his screenmate, as required by law, but behind > screens also might have volunteered that, "My partner will explain it > as strong, but I have a weak two bid," as suggested by Active Ethics. AAAAAH!!! This isn't 'active ethics' in my book, thank you. I have an ethical obligation to try to win. I have an ethical obligation to describe my agreements. As far as having an obligation to describe my hand, humbug. > Players using new (for them), complex or unfamiliar (to others) > methods have a special responsibility to know what they are playing, > alert their bids properly, and explain them accurately and completely > on both sides of the screen. In this case West failed to live up to > that standard. Eh? West alerted properly, explained accurately, and knew what he was playing, just a bit later then making the bid. Being clueless is not a crime, even at the World Championships. > > In addition, while it is clear that E/W systemically played ACOL two > bids in the majors and accurately informed their screenmates of this, > East's "oddly" conservative 4S bid was troubling to some Committee > members in light of West's "misbid." I'm troubled by this. East got lucky; this statement is odd. Was there really an indication East had a wire on the board? If there was, more investigation was necessary. Just from the writeup, I seriously doubt there was a wire. > > As for N/S, while they would have had a better chance to compete for > the contract had the problems created by the opponents not occurred, > they themselves had not adequately discussed the meanings of their > conventional methods over what should not have been a totally > unexpected ACOL 2S opening. Thus, they bore responsibility for their > problems. First syllable: Bull. If this were really an MI problem, we ought not go out and say "Well, there was MI, but the NOs are so poorly prepared we're not going to give them what they deserve." N/S's methods are relevent in determining a result absent the MI, but that doesn't appear to be the upshot of this gratuitous statement. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Committee's decision: > > The Committee (Chairman) adjusted the score for E/W to average minus > based on the following: > > (1) West forgot his methods; Baseless reason. Pathetic. > > (2) West did not disclose the intended meaning of his 2S bid on his > side of the screen, as per Active Ethics; Negative reason. Active Ethics is taking zero percent actions after partner's tank or MI. Active Ethics is explaining one's agreements. Feh. > > (3) E/W's convention card was not filled out properly; and Irrelevent to this case (see writeup). This is a PP issue, not an adjustment issue. > > (4) East chose a conservative 4S bid with a hand that warranted a slam > try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with > East's (conservative) action. Look, let's either put it on the dime or not. I don't believe you have to have a 100% case to adjust when suspecting a wire, but I'll guess that the chance of a wire is less than 20%. That's not enough, for certain. > > The Chairman also adjusted N/S's score to the better of the table > result or average minus, in recognition of N/S's responsibility in not > having adequately discussed their conventional defenses to the > opponents' strong, natural opening bids. Blecch.From where I sit, it's my guess that most N/S's would be derailed by this very lucky auction by E/W. I don't think preparedness was an issue. What lawless nonsense. If we are to allow committees to rule this way, why have laws? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dissenting Opinions (Colker, Anderson): > > We disagree with the Committee's decision. While it is disruptive and > generally not good for our game when players forget their methods, > these things do happen. Yay. > > Under the present laws, as long as the opponents are properly informed > of the systemic meaning of a player's bid (not necessarily his actual > hand) there has been no infraction unless the partnership is found to > have an undisclosed understanding, which was clearly not the case > here. Yay! > > We also find it likely that West's initial few words to South, his > halting speech pattern and sudden change in explanation conveyed to > his screenmate the idea that his hand did not match his bid. We would > have preferred it had West simply and completely volunteered his error > to his screenmate, but the laws do not require players to do this, and > Active Ethics is not yet the law. I'm not convinced it's active ethics to disclose your hand. I would prefer West to try to win the event. If an American football player fumbles the ball, it's usually a bad thing, but if he ends up recovering it in the end zone, he doesn't have to give it back. And fumbling doesn't stop you from trying. This said, I've done similar things (Opponent asks meaning of 5H, I tell opp: Partner is showing this card (flash HA) but she doesn't have it. She has two aces and has forgotten our agreement.) However, I would never condemn a person for following the laws. > > Similarly, we find East's conservative 4S bid not to be an egregious > action; rather, we would characterize it as a nonaggressive (perhaps > less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. Yay. > > We believe that the problem with the E/W convention cards stemmed from > the pair's failure to notice and remove a reference on the front of > the card to the two suited major-suit openings played by their spouses > when modifying the computer file from the spouses' card. The methods > were not part of E/W's system, nor did the presence of the error have > any bearing on the present situation (except for the inquiries needed > to determine this). Yay! > > Finally, we believe N/S's problems stemmed solely from their failure > to have adequately discussed their conventional defenses to strong > opening bids. I still don't buy it, unless there's a lot more which isn't in the writeup. > > We regret that we cannot find any basis in the laws for adjusting > either side's score from that which occurred at the table. Why regret? I think the laws have it right. We believe > that the TDs got this one exactly right. We, too, would have allowed > the table result to stand for both pairs and then strongly advised E/W > to be more careful with their bidding in the future and to immediately > correct the deficiencies with their convention cards. I'd just tell them to correct their CCs. Giving stern looks for screw-ups is typically unwarranted; if playing HUM then a stern look may be appropriate. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 07:07:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:07:45 +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 HAA01790 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:07:37 +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 OAA26729; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809032106.OAA26729@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 CORRECTION! Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:05:37 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry all, I reversed NO and OS (sometimes) in the following: > I thought this was settled long ago. A slam is bid by misuse of UI, > and makes because the defenders revoke. The OS keeps its score, > while the NOs get their score put back to game, with the revoke > still assumed. The revoke was not a consequence of the infraction > (despite the NOs' claims that they were upset by it), so the revoke > is not thrown out, even for the OS. However, if an opening ace lead > had permitted the slam to make, it would no doubt be in order to > assume a different defense vs an assigned game contract. In fact, > any reasonable argument for a different defense would be accepted, > since doubtful points are settled in favor of the OS. Of course it's the NOS that keeps its score, and the OS that gets its score put back to game. And doubtful points are settled in favor of the NOS! Repeat, sorry. I must slow down! If you quote me, please fix the errors. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 08:08:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:08:41 +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 ESMTP id IAA02060 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:08:29 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEhb2-00049g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:11:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:27:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <01BDD73C.51BD1E00@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Are you saying that the Laws as currently written and interpreted >require a player to generally proceed as though his partner has forgotten >an agreement whenever questions or proper use of an announcement or alert >procedure make it plain that he has remembered it? No. All I said [and all I meant] was: > Maybe, but as has been discussed previously, there are certain >problems in interpretation of the Laws when a player has both AI and UI >that say the same thing. Suppose you open Stop 2C. Your partner says "You should not say Stop." You say you jumped. Partner said your RHO opened 1S. You look down, and yes, he has. Your partners discussion with you is UI. The bidding card saying 1S is AI. You are honest: you would never have looked down without partner's comment. Do you think this is not a problem? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 09:08:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:08:27 +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 JAA02175 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:08:21 +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 SAA12505 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 18:11:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0PGZ801L Thu, 03 Sep 98 18:07:53 Message-ID: <9809031807.0PGZ801@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 18:07:53 Subject: Bizzare Bidding Box Proc To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While waiting for the players to ready themselves for the auction the dealer's RHO removes a PASS card from the dealer's bidding box and says, 'You are going to pass anyway' and slaps it down more or less in front of the dealer. The dealer summons the TD and says that RHO passed out of turn while saying, 'You are going to pass anyway.' The TD ascertains that RO did in fact reach into the dealer's bidding box and 'bid' the PASS and said it to the dealer. What does the sage of TDs rule? O>> From: Steve Willner O>> > From: Robin Barker O>> > The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined O>> > most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have O>> > been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent O>> > intent". O>> O>> Is the word 'apparent' used in other jurisdictions? (I haven't noticed O>> it before.) Does its presence or absence make any difference? O> O>I doubt it makes any real difference. It simply avoids arguments: O>"how can you say it was my intent, only I know what I intended". O> O>The TD is able hide behind the words "apparent intent", saying: O>"to me, it appears that your intent was to bid 1S" and that is O>sufficient. O> O>Robin O> O>-- O>Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk O>Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 O>B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 O>Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 11:35:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:35 +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 ESMTP id LAA02438 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEkpK-0001Wi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:38:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:31:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <199809032006.QAA13840@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >> in turn and face down. > >> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >> [L54]. The TD gives declarer five options, and declarer does not accept >> the LOOT: in fact he just decides to keep it as a penalty card. > >Does declarer have the usual five options? For example, can he forbid >East to lead the suit of West's lead, if it happens that East has >already put a card of that suit on the table? How does he know which suit it is? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 11:35:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:35 +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 ESMTP id LAA02437 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEkpK-0001Wj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:38:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:37:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: <35EDAEAB.6471@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >Report of appeal >I'm troubled by this. East got lucky; this statement is odd. Was there >really an indication East had a wire on the board? If there was, more >investigation was necessary. Just from the writeup, I seriously doubt >there was a wire. Look at the hand. It is quite obvious that the commentators are confusing Acol Twos with Goren Twos. 4S is the only possible bid. >> (4) East chose a conservative 4S bid with a hand that warranted a slam >> try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with >> East's (conservative) action. >Look, let's either put it on the dime or not. I don't believe you have >to have a 100% case to adjust when suspecting a wire, but I'll guess >that the chance of a wire is less than 20%. That's not enough, for >certain. It is less than that: it is not conservative at all opposite an Acol Two. >> Similarly, we find East's conservative 4S bid not to be an egregious >> action; rather, we would characterize it as a nonaggressive (perhaps >> less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. Getting close, but it is still based on mis-analysis. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 11:35:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:57 +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 ESMTP id LAA02451 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEkpb-0001Wp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:31:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903164521.007fd810@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >>in turn and face down. >> >> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >>[L54]. > >I'd try L58A. Despite a completely clear statement in L54 that covers this case? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 12:05:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:05:37 +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 MAA02502 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:05:30 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21777; 3 Sep 98 19:07 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: OLOOT In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:31:19 PDT." Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 19:07:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9809031907.aa21777@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Tim Goodwin wrote: > >At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads > >>in turn and face down. > >> > >> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead > >>[L54]. > > > >I'd try L58A. > > Despite a completely clear statement in L54 that covers this case? Yup, I didn't realize this statement was there (it's new in the 1997 Laws). The Law begins like this: LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. A. Declarer Spreads His Hand . . . I have a complaint about this, though. The way this is worded, it may make it seem that this sentence specifies the conditions under which this Law applies (rather than a clarification of how to handle an unusual situation). That is, someone reading this may think that if an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner has *not* led at all, then Law 54 doesn't apply. Of course, all of us here know better, but the way this is presented opens it up to misinterpretation by a newbie director, IMHO. I'd urge the Lawmakers to correct this in the next version. My suggestion is to move this sentence to Law 54E (replacing the word "following" with something else, of course). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 12:17:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:17:42 +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 MAA02528 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:17:36 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA28572 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980903221642.008066b0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 22:16:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: OLOOT In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19980903164521.007fd810@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:31 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >>>in turn and face down. >>> >>> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >>>[L54]. >> >>I'd try L58A. > > Despite a completely clear statement in L54 that covers this case? Which statement in L54 covers simultaneous plays? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 17:44:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA03096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:42 +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 RAA03091 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:35 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h16.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id LAA29936; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:47:13 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F035BE.BD7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:47:27 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" References: <35ED0218.2D190194@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) This time my opinion is rather (with Jesper, Dawid, Linda, Anton etc.) and against establishing official or semi-official group from BLML (or inside it). May be - due to history of my country - I am too suspicious and do not like self-appointmented bodies (committee, counsil etc.). BLML group does not represent the TD society, just only small (the smallest?) part of it. Let it will continue as it is - and if WBFLC members (or another officials) are interested - they always have possibilities to read our messages. Moreover - we are group where free opinions are exchaged and where every (high level and low level) TD may discuss his problems. I am afraid that after suggested performance BLML may become moderated group... Thanks, there were too much moderated doings. Vitold rather differs from opinion of my usual Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Dear Linda , Anton , Rich and all of us > > I want to make clear my position , based on my Laws- Law 0 and Law 99. > > BLML shouldn't be a lobbistic or pressure group - just a serious group > discussing general issues dealing with laws' implementations and > asking for help or opinion about concrete cases. > > The Lawmakers have their "raison d'etre" from two sources : > ....a) The players (of course top level )telling them how the laws > .......influence the play , the sporting spirit, the joy etc...(LAW 0) > ....b) The TDs ,telling them how do they implement the rules , the > .......troubles & difficulties & influences & etc , bringing a hugh > .......bag with examples of rulings ..........(LAW 99 ). > > I think that BLML role should be a discussion group with 2 aims : > 1) Being a stage for TDs and players to discuss Laws' issues. > 2) Let TDs to exchange information and knowledge , helping them > to improve their activities as TD .... > > I recognize a lot of National and international TDs on this list > and I think that we can be an useful "instrument" for the Laws > committees (WBF , Zone and Nat.) to organize materials - cases, > papers, opinions etc. - to help them . > This is why i suggested to "elect" ??? some 5-7 people who will > put in a clear and concise way the majority's opinion for each issue. > They will appear in a public site (David's web page or Herman's or > any other host who will agree.....) > > I would like to see your comments to this proposal. > > Dany > > Richard Lighton wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > > Marv > > > > > > AGREED > > > > > > Sincerely > > > Dany > > > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > I am bothered by the idea of a vote. The problem is that not all votes > > are equal, and not all 200 members of blml would vote on everything > > anyway. > > > > Compile the data base of opinions (a blml FGA--frequently given answers?) > > if someone has the time and appropriate recognized expertise and > > authority. But we do need to recognize that we probably have a wide range > > of knowledge and practical experience in the group. We range from Laws > > commisiion members and international directors to club directors to me. > ... From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 18:16:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:16:58 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03155 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:16:51 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h16.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id MAA03315; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:19:34 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F03CEC.68C4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 12:19:47 -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: Controlled psyches References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David (DWS) wrote: > > Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > > 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > 2C > > The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is > expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a > Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! Would you be so kind as to make it clear - what was the number of that Appeal case in Lille? Because I propably missed it. If your qoutation is right - AC's decision is very strange. And if we add to it cases No. 22 and 23 - then we (I) may take a conclusion that something is wrong in AC's positions at international level. Fully agreed with DWS's opinion about psyche: so in bidding as in card-play. One point more - usually psyche during bidding is arm of weaker players against stronger ones. Then why do the Bodies try to make them without that arm? Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 19:11:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:11:47 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA03278 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:11:40 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zErwp-0003Y6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:14:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:07:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903221642.008066b0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 11:31 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >>>At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>> >>>> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >>>>in turn and face down. >>>> >>>> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >>>>[L54]. >>> >>>I'd try L58A. >> >> Despite a completely clear statement in L54 that covers this case? > >Which statement in L54 covers simultaneous plays? "When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, ..." -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 19:11:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:11:50 +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 ESMTP id TAA03280 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:11:41 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zErwr-0003YQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:14:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:04:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <35F03CEC.68C4@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >Hi all:) > >David (DWS) wrote: >> >> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >> >> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >> 2C >> >> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! > > Would you be so kind as to make it clear - what was the number of that >Appeal case in Lille? Because I propably missed it. If your qoutation is >right - AC's decision is very strange. And if we add to it cases No. 22 >and 23 - then we (I) may take a conclusion that something is wrong in >AC's positions at international level. It has not been published. When I left Lille there were 17 unpublished Appeals. We were trying to safeguard them so we could put them on a web site. Certainly those written up by Herman De Wael or myself will not be lost. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 20:35:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:35:53 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03532 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:35:46 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA15325 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:38:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16410 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:38:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20345 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:38:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:38:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809041038.LAA20345@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > >David (DWS) wrote: > >> > >> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > >> > >> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > >> 2C > >> > >> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is > >> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a > >> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! > > > > Would you be so kind as to make it clear - what was the number of that > >Appeal case in Lille? Because I propably missed it. If your qoutation is > >right - AC's decision is very strange. And if we add to it cases No. 22 > >and 23 - then we (I) may take a conclusion that something is wrong in > >AC's positions at international level. > > It has not been published. When I left Lille there were 17 > unpublished Appeals. We were trying to safeguard them so we could put > them on a web site. Certainly those written up by Herman De Wael or > myself will not be lost. > This morning's bulletin has three further appeals (#25-27) and a write up of the case above, by the player who psyched. The appeals committee (or at least the chairman) felt that the partner of the psycher should have explained (to the weak opposition) that 2C "did not exist", and although partner had not psyched for six years, she probably had now. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 20:36:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:36:41 +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 ESMTP id UAA03547 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:36:35 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEtH1-0003hg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:39:23 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:06:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: OLOOT Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:06:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS writes: > West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East > leads > in turn and face down. > > OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead > [L54]. The TD gives declarer five options, and declarer does not > accept > the LOOT: in fact he just decides to keep it as a penalty card. > > Back to East. He now leads. Does it have to be the same card as he > originally tried to lead? Should the TD check it? > > ########## To answer your original question, Law 54 requires "the > face down lead to be *retracted*" and Law 50D2(b) states that "the > defender may lead *any* card". I can therefore see no reason > whatsoever why the defender should be required to lead the same card > as he originally tried to lead and, hence, no reason for the TD to > check it. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 20:57:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:57:35 +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 ESMTP id UAA03599 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:57:30 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEtbE-0006Q0-00; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:05:32 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980830200016.0079b100@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19980830200016.0079b100@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes > >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 > wnes -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 20:57:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:57:43 +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 ESMTP id UAA03606 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:57:35 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEtb9-0006Px-00; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:00:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:03:39 +0100 To: Christian Bernscherer Cc: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" From: michael amos Subject: Re: L25 with screens In-Reply-To: <01BDD12D.480CBDD0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01BDD12D.480CBDD0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at>, Christian Bernscherer writes >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)? > Sorry i haven't replied sooner Christian. L haven't been paying attention. I had a similar problem earlier this year using screens and i received very few helpful replies when I posed the problem here on blml. FWIW my opinion is as follows If the player eventually repeats their first call the provision of L25B1 that partner must pass once does not apply with screens - this is consistent with eg the way we deal with insufficient bids with screens - Secondly if the player eventually changes her call then -3 imps is indeed her best score quite how you sort that out in head to head or round-robin is your headache What worried me most was what to tell the players on the other side of the screen - when this happened for me - i stopped the relevant board - let them play the next couple while i thought about it and rthen went back to the relevant board so the players on the other side of the screen had a clue that something funny had happened. I decided to tell them this "There has been an infraction on the other side of the screen. As a result the best score that EW can achieve is -3 imps." E was not impressesed :) I see no reason not to apply 25A although it's hard to see how a player would not realise an inadvertent error before the tray was pushed through My original posting A simple little problem Screen 1C : 2D X P ? : 1C opener now asks screenmate "What's your partner's 2D bid?" Player who has passed thinks this is a strange question because he has misseen the 1C bid and thought that the opening bid was 1S - he now realises his mistake - (2D shows majors) and calls the TD (me) and says "Can I change my bid? 1 What do you tell him? You might think this is easy 2 What do you tell his LHO? The form of scoring is imps - it's a league format with scoring over the season by net imps 3 What do you tell the guys on the other side of the screen? It is possible that they may have noticed a bit of a delay and the fact that the three of us have visited the corridor for ten minutes (Actually one answer will do for all three questions :) My first shot was "Would you like to play the next board while I go away and think about this one - oh and RTFLB " :) ) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 21:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:07:11 +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 ESMTP id VAA03655 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:07:04 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEtkW-0007f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:09:52 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:46:36 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > David Martin wrote: > > >> ######## There is a world of difference in trying to recover the > >> situation by guessing the final contract with the intent to play > >> there, eg. by bidding 3NT on a strong balanced hand when 3NT would > >> normally be gambling, and deliberately psyching a bid where you do > not > >> intend to play there knowing that your psyche is risk free because > >> partner cannot be fooled by it. In the original example, the > psycher, > >> with a heart void, knows that partner is likely to have some heart > >> length and, therefore, without the infraction silencing him, > partner > >> is all too likely to pre-emtively raise hearts. Solely because of > his > >> infraction, the psycher now knows that this risk no longer exists > and, > >> hence, any damage to the NOs because of this should be adjusted > under > >> Law 23. However, in the particular case quoted, there is probably > no > >> way that the psycher could foresee the outcome that followed and, > >> therefore, IMO no adjustment should be given. ######### > > L23 applies at the time of the infraction, ie when the player bid > 2D, > not when he bid 1H. Of course he knows at the time of his 1H bid that > his partner's pass can benefit him: it is always beneficial when > psyching to have a partner who will not leap to 6NT. > > > > ########## Agreed, and whilst *I am NOT suggesting for a moment* that > Richard OBOOTed deliberately in order to protect an intended psyche, > it is nevertheless true that a player in this position could have done > such a thing intentionally and could have known that it was likely to > damage the NOs. My understanding is that when ruling, the TD is only > concerned with what players generally in a given situation *could have > known* and not with what a specific player actually intended, > otherwise we run into all sorts of legal problems with defamation of > character etc. This is no different to the standard example of a Law > 23 adjustment where a player who has gone beyond 3NT and who now > realises that the only place left to play is 4NT, resolves the problem > by making an insufficient bid of 3C which he subsequently corrects to > 4NT, silencing his partner and therefore preventing 4NT being treated > as Blackwood. This is quite different from the standard example of > "rub of the green" where a player with a balanced 14 count and only 8 > tricks available in NTs inadvertently silences his partner who has a > balanced 11HCPs and thereby manages to play in 1NT+1 when the rest of > the room is in 3NT-1. In this latter case, the offender could not > have known that it would be to his advantage to silence his partner > and, most times, he would lose out by doing so. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 21:07:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:07:13 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03657 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:07:07 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEtka-0007f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:09:56 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:57:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Reserving rights Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:57:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > There is a UI sequence that finishes with North bidding 4H very > slowly, and South bidding 6H which appears to use the hesitation. The > hesitation by North is agreed. > > The defence leads a card, dummy [South] appears, and the defender on > lead realises that dummy's bidding is surely illegal. He must have > used > UI! However, it seems to be going off: he has led one of his two > aces, > and his singleton king of trumps looks good for a trick. > > Declarer ruffs, cashes the ace of trumps, and makes his slam. The > defence ask for a ruling. Has the failure to call the TD at the sight > of dummy affected anything? > > ############ IMO no, despite the wording of Law 16A2, ie. "summon > the Director forthwith". ############ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:01:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:01:58 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03840 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:01:46 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h9.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id QAA26284; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:04:27 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F07206.150D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:04:38 -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: Reserving rights References: <35F06B68.25C2@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David (DWS) wrote: > > There is a UI sequence that finishes with North bidding 4H very > slowly, and South bidding 6H which appears to use the hesitation. > The defence leads a card, dummy [South] appears, and the defender on > lead realises that dummy's bidding is surely illegal. He must have used > UI! However, it seems to be going off: he has led one of his two aces, > and his singleton king of trumps looks good for a trick. > Declarer ruffs, cashes the ace of trumps, and makes his slam. The > defence ask for a ruling. Has the failure to call the TD at the sight > of dummy affected anything? It was strictly the same problem in Dany's post "Double shot". Dany felt that not calling (deliberate - because of waiting profit) TD at the moment of UI-case may consist double-shot attempt from NOS. Dawid (DWS) recommended in Dany's thread to use L9. My position was based (in that thread) on L10 and L72A3: NOS side has no authority to waive the possible punishment, - and even on L72B2: deliberate non-calling TD may be punished. My opinion - TD should be called as soon as possible after UI-case became suspected. And never mind possible profit - the Laws demand such calling. If NOS deliberate does not call the TD - it may provide to: - punishment under L72B2 - if TD decides that non-calling was deliberate - TD's adjusting may approve NOS's result - if TD decides that non-calling was deliberate (OS result should be adjusted anyway). Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:06:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:06:27 +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 WAA03873 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:06:20 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h9.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id QAA26711; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:09:07 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F07320.6D68@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:09:20 -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: Procedural Penalties References: <35F0532C.5AEB@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Several weeks ago it was Marvin who finally proved the authority of WBFLC to interpret the Laws. And it was OK. At the PP-problem years ago there were made some decision. I'd like to remind WBFLC position (known to me via E.Kaplan's words): "There may happen that infraction will not provide to redress. But there still may be room for penalty". And he explained that even in case when one should not give redress to NOS (because damage is too small or even absent at all) - OS may be punished. It is quite possible that I missed changing WBFLC's opinion at this matter - then it is my fault, sorry in advance. But I did not know about such change. Thus - all of us should follow this position. And I appreciate very much Marvin's arguments against using PP for player's punishment - but decision belongs to WBFLC. Vitold > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > >Putting the above into other words, just to make sure I understand it > > >(and David will, I hope, tell us if I have misunderstood), you issue a > > >PP: > > >1. when there has been a breach of proper procedure, and > > >2. you believe it likely to be repeated absent a PP, and > > >3. you believe it (much) less likely to be repeated if you assign a PP. > > >4. you think the offender ought to have known better. > > > > >For the above reasons, I have to disagree with David on the last > > >point. It seems to me that PP's and score adjustment serve different > > >purposes and ought to be considered separately. If there is damage > > >from an irregularity, adjust the score (unless there is a specific > > >reason not to do so). If the four conditions above are met, issue a > > >PP. Of course it will be harder to meet condition 2 (repeat violations > > >likely) if there is a score adjustment, but it is still quite > > >possible. > > > > Sure: but my argument for not giving PPfs with an adjustment is that > > conditions 2 and 3 are not met. > > > > >Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PP's for what > > >would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be > > >tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the > > >"violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed. > > > > How about "inconveniences other contestants"? > > > > >All this is much longer than I intended, but the use PP's is an > > >important question. Are the four conditions above a reasonable > > >summary, or do they need to be modified? > > > > Seems well summarised to me. > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:24:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:24:26 +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 WAA03931 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:24:21 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA09621; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980904082318.007e77c0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 08:23:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: OLOOT Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com In-Reply-To: <9809031907.aa21777@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:07 PM 9/3/98 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >At 08:22 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >> West leads out of turn and face up. Roughly simultaneously East leads >> >>in turn and face down. >> >> >> >> OK, it's easy. West has led out of turn and East retracts his lead >> >>[L54]. >> > >> >I'd try L58A. >> >> Despite a completely clear statement in L54 that covers this case? > >Yup, I didn't realize this statement was there (it's new in the 1997 >Laws). The Law begins like this: > > LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN > When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner > leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply. Whoops. I was using the 1987 lawbook. Sorry. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:27:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:27:15 +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 WAA03945 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:27:09 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n72.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.114]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA09747 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980904082612.007e5be0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 08:26:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: References: <35F03CEC.68C4@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:04 AM 9/4/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > wrote: >>Hi all:) >> >>David (DWS) wrote: >>> >>> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >>> >>> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >>> 2C >>> >>> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >>> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >>> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! >> >> Would you be so kind as to make it clear - what was the number of that >>Appeal case in Lille? Because I propably missed it. If your qoutation is >>right - AC's decision is very strange. And if we add to it cases No. 22 >>and 23 - then we (I) may take a conclusion that something is wrong in >>AC's positions at international level. > > It has not been published. When I left Lille there were 17 >unpublished Appeals. We were trying to safeguard them so we could put >them on a web site. Certainly those written up by Herman De Wael or >myself will not be lost. There is an articles about this appeal in either Bulletin #13 or #14. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:31:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:31:06 +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 ESMTP id WAA03966 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:30:59 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEv3i-0003lZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:33:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:24:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > > SNIP > > >> David Martin wrote: >> >> >> ######## There is a world of difference in trying to recover the >> >> situation by guessing the final contract with the intent to play >> >> there, eg. by bidding 3NT on a strong balanced hand when 3NT would >> >> normally be gambling, and deliberately psyching a bid where you do >> not >> >> intend to play there knowing that your psyche is risk free because >> >> partner cannot be fooled by it. In the original example, the >> psycher, >> >> with a heart void, knows that partner is likely to have some heart >> >> length and, therefore, without the infraction silencing him, >> partner >> >> is all too likely to pre-emtively raise hearts. Solely because of >> his >> >> infraction, the psycher now knows that this risk no longer exists >> and, >> >> hence, any damage to the NOs because of this should be adjusted >> under >> >> Law 23. However, in the particular case quoted, there is probably >> no >> >> way that the psycher could foresee the outcome that followed and, >> >> therefore, IMO no adjustment should be given. ######### >> >> L23 applies at the time of the infraction, ie when the player bid >> 2D, >> not when he bid 1H. Of course he knows at the time of his 1H bid that >> his partner's pass can benefit him: it is always beneficial when >> psyching to have a partner who will not leap to 6NT. >> >> >> >> ########## Agreed, and whilst *I am NOT suggesting for a moment* that >> Richard OBOOTed deliberately in order to protect an intended psyche, >> it is nevertheless true that a player in this position could have done >> such a thing intentionally and could have known that it was likely to >> damage the NOs. My understanding is that when ruling, the TD is only >> concerned with what players generally in a given situation *could have >> known* and not with what a specific player actually intended, >> otherwise we run into all sorts of legal problems with defamation of >> character etc. This is no different to the standard example of a Law >> 23 adjustment where a player who has gone beyond 3NT and who now >> realises that the only place left to play is 4NT, resolves the problem >> by making an insufficient bid of 3C which he subsequently corrects to >> 4NT, silencing his partner and therefore preventing 4NT being treated >> as Blackwood. This is quite different from the standard example of >> "rub of the green" where a player with a balanced 14 count and only 8 >> tricks available in NTs inadvertently silences his partner who has a >> balanced 11HCPs and thereby manages to play in 1NT+1 when the rest of >> the room is in 3NT-1. In this latter case, the offender could not >> have known that it would be to his advantage to silence his partner >> and, most times, he would lose out by doing so. ########### Have you realised what you are suggesting? The psyche is completely irrelevant. If you are going solely on a very pedantic approach to "could have known" then what you are suggesting is that we should adjust every time someone opens out of turn with a weak hand! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 22:33:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:33:09 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03984 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:33:03 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA20776 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 08:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904083639.006e3f74@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 08:36:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <35ED0218.2D190194@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The internet is an inherently chaotic medium, which is responsible for much of both its value and its charm. BLML is a typical example of the kind of on-line forum that the best mailing lists and newsgroups (at least until a while back, when the spammers took over Usenet) can provide as a resource to people interested in a specific topic. Ideally, someone with a question sends it to BLML, receives as many answers as there are BLML members who feel they have something worthwhile to contribute, reads and evaluates those answers, and comes away with the additional insight into the issue they need to work out their own answer to their own satisfaction. It's often the offbeat or minority opinions that provide more insight than does the statement of the consensus view. The value would be lost if all they could get from us was some "official" or majority opinion. If someone wants an authoritative or official opinion on the laws, there are other resources to which they can turn. I see no need to set up a mechanism for providing "official BLML opinions". IMO we should preserve the spirit of a completely open forum, not try to become a "shadow" regulatory or adjudicative body. I see our unique purpose as providing folks with a place to come with precisely those questions that have no right and wrong answers. 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 Sep 4 23:08:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:08:25 +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 XAA04069 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:08:19 +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 JAA21786 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904091157.006dd42c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:11:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809021435.KAA04339@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 9/2/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >Oh dear, mind reading again! Can't we do without that? The language >of the regulation seems to allow (indeed invite) a decision based on >the actual position of the bidding card, not on the bidder's intent. I don't think we can do without it. What we can do is base decisions on "apparent intent" rather than "intent", to give ourselves the scope to infer intent from action without requiring judicial standards of proof or Dr. Jax's Amazing Electronic Mind-Reading Machine. When we try to regulate inherently intentional behavior without reference to intent, we wind up with complicated rules, varying interpretations, inevitable loopholes, and BLs who are more interested in what they can get away with within the letter of law than in following its spirit. If we want to make intentional behavior subject to sanction, we need to allow ourselves to judge intent somehow. If we were more willing to do that, our laws and regulations would be a lot simpler, more straightforward, and less subject to "lawyering". This echos the position I took a few months ago when we were discussing double shots. I said then, and still believe, that if we want double shots to be against the rules, we must make rules against double shots. Double shots are, by definition, matters of intent, and it's both impractical and untenable to try to prevent them by applying rules that don't address that intent. What we want to achieve with the bid box rules is to allow apparently unintended calls to be corrected, while requiring apparently intended calls to stand. To do this without ambiguity and confusion, we need a rule that states it as such. There may be occasional miscarriages of justice, but that is preferable to forcing us to judge intent from some number of inches or from the angle at which the bid card is held in the player's hand, which will lead to far more. The laws can survive the occasional unfair ruling made because the adjudicators made a misjudgement more readily than those made because the adjudicators were forced to apply an automatic presumption based on a mechanical error when they knew it was wrong. "It looked like it might have been intentional" is a better justification for a bad ruling than "we know it wasn't intentional, but it was over an inch from the box, so there's nothing we can do." 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 Sep 4 23:29:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:29:24 +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 XAA04127 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:29:17 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA22533 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904093255.006e7110@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:32:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Pulled both ways by UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:40 AM 9/2/98 -0800, G. wrote: >I held S:x H:AKQx D:xxx C:QTxxx. >Partner deals: > >Pard RHO Me LHO >----- ----- ----- ----- >1H X XX(1) 1S >1NT 2S 3S(2) P >3NT P 4H(3) P >5H P ??? > >(1) I wanted to make an immediate splinter. However, thanks to a recent >change to our convention card, it was not clear whether 3S, 3NT, or some >other bid would have this meaning. So I tried (in vain) to avoid a >misunderstanding by starting with a redouble and catching up later. > >(2) We've never discussed this particular bid before. I hoped it would be >clear I had heart support, probably with spade shortness. When questioned, >partner said this was either first-round control of spades, or asking him >if he really had a spade stopper. > >(3) After this bid, partner got bombarded with questions again. Now he >says he is fairly sure I have first-round control of spades. The auction >is consistent with the possibility that partner has Axxx in spades and >thinks I have a void; but RHO is muttering so noisily about not >understanding our bidding that she might as well have said "I have the SA >and you are incompetent bidders." > >5H is asking me to bid six if I have the "obvious suit" under control. Now >I have a dilemma. In the absence of UI, I think we have a fast spade >loser, no trump losers, and a fair chance of a slow loser somewhere, so >stopping or going on is a tossup. > >On the one hand, I have UI that my spade holding is going to be >disappointing to partner. This clearly suggests passing over going on. > >On the other hand, without UI the obvious suit is spades. But partner has >told the table we already have spades under control. So I now have UI that >partner intends 5H to ask about trump quality, which clearly suggests >going on over passing. > >For the first time since the 1997 laws came out, I felt as if I was seeing >two calls both demonstrably suggested over the other. I knew that somebody >would call the cops whether the result was 5H+5 or 6H+6, and I was pretty >sure they would get an adjustment if they did. Which call should I make? > >At the table I chose 6H, on the basis that all the information, authorized >and not, pointed towards the slam being less than 50%. I almost wanted >partner to go down just so we wouldnt have to explain this mess to a >director. I agree with Gordon's 6H call. By breaking system on round 1, he knew that partner would not know what 3S on the second round meant (the hand he "hoped" to show sounds like a hand he'd already denied by failing to make the systemic splinter on the previous round). He was floundering, and, absent UI, would have been entitled (indeed forced) to make a blind guess whether his hand was worth raising 5H to 6. The UI told him that partner expected first-round spade control. He didn't have it. That made his hand less suitable for slam than the hand he knew partner expected. So he bid the slam, taking his obligation under L16A seriously. The further issue of trump quality is too deep a position to argue when it's obvious that the auction was already in floundering mode. Had he passed 5H, and had it then come to me for adjudication, he'd have had to convince me that his hand was bad enough in general that 6H wasn't an LA; that would take some convincing. 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 Sep 4 23:36:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:36:22 +1000 Received: from clmout3-int.prodigy.com (clmout3-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04162 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:36:15 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout3-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA69752 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:33:57 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA07284 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:36:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199809041336.JAA07284@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:36:40, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Appeals from Lille MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- All the Lille appeals that appeared in the bulletins may be found at http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/appeals.htm If you want to find the text bulletins, and do not have web access, we do have an FTP area at ftp://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/ The PDF and postscript are there as well. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 23:38:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:38:24 +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 XAA04176 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:38:18 +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 JAA22766 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904094156.006e6fac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:41:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:02 PM 9/2/98 EDT, RCraigH wrote: >A hypothetical situation: > >A regular OKB partner and I have discussed the possibility of playing 2N - 3S >as a "transfer" to 3N, either to play or as a prelude to some minor suit >nuances. 2N - 3N would be a relay to 4C as some kind of single minor suit >sequence. > >He suggested and I thought independently, that, this being a strange-sounding >sequence, that the sequence 2NT - 3NT (alert!): 4C - 4NT should be reserved >for "I forgot!!" > >Based on previous discussions on this discussion group, I suspect there may be >some interesting ideas involved here regarding possible UI. > >Question 1: Would there be a problem with 2N - 3N; (alert) - 4C - 4N to >play without discussion? Some surely will argue there has been unauthorized >information by the alert. On the other hand, is it sufficiently an automatic >wake up?? Surely this is an area that no one would make such a call as 4C >without this kind of agreement? If the bid has "absolutely" no meaning >outside of this agreement, how can there be UI through the alert? > >Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some >day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have >been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to >say, "I forgot?" If there were no alerts, this agreement wouldn't even raise an issue. So the question is, does 2NT-3NT(alert)-4C, playing with alerts, provide any more information to responder than would 2NT-3NT-4C playing without alerts. I'm inclined (although I'm not 100% confident) to believe that it does not, and would allow the agreement. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 4 23:53:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:53:30 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04230 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 23:53:24 +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 KAA23286 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904095602.006e5fc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 09:56:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: <35EC7AB1.3A13@mindspring.com> References: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:52 PM 9/1/98 -0800, John wrote: >I can't imagine playing this without agreements on the next round or >two. If you had *no* agreement as to 4N, I'd rule UI every time. Why not >4N as 6-key RKB? Why not 4N as choice of minors? (Surely a logical >method). Guessing right that it's natural with the UI can't be right. >I'd adjust in a heartbeat. But opener alerted 3NT, and opener is the one who "guess[es] right" that 4NT is natural. *He* isn't the one who has the UI, so he is free to do whatever he wants (i.e. pass 4NT). >> Question 2: Having predetermined that there will be a lapse of memory some >> day -- probably the first two times it comes up, after which memory will have >> been implemented -- does anyone have a problem with a predetermined call to >> say, "I forgot?" > >No. But, if that's a concern, you should tell the opponents. My pd and I >agreed to tell the opps: "It's a relay to 4C, usually based on a weakish >minor-suit hand, but it can be some very specific strong minor-suit >hands or he's forgotten." But having an "I forgot" bid in place is >entirely legal. If it's a predetermined agreement that 4NT says you forgot, then that's part of your system. So you should tell the opponents, "it's a relay to 4C, showing either (whatever) or a standard 3NT call, even though with a standard 3NT call he could have systemically bid 3S". Then you should alert responder's next call, either (4NT) "that shows the standard 3NT call" or (anything else) "that shows the (whatever)". 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 Sep 5 00:50:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 00:50:57 +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 AAA06612 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 00:50:51 +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 KAA24508 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904103028.006e4658@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:30:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorized information vs. system In-Reply-To: References: <68d0cda.35edb26a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:50 PM 9/2/98 -0800, G. wrote: >Putting it in writing can only help you, so you may as well do it. As a TD >or AC member, I would have a hard time permitting opener to pass 4NT >unless you had some sort of convincing evidence that 4NT was to play by >agreement. Can't hurt, but shouldn't be necessary. What *should* be necessary is including the possibility of a "forget" in your explanation to the opponents of the 3NT bid -- it is, after all, part of your explicit agreement about the bid -- rather than giving the typical, unresponsive and unhelpful reply of "it tells me to bid 4C". Opener's mention of the possibility as part of your explicit agreement should be sufficient to satisfy any TD or AC, as well as satisfying the spirit and intent of full disclosure. 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 Sep 5 00:50:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 00:50:07 +1000 Received: from acestes-fe0.ultra.net (acestes-fe0.ultra.net [199.232.56.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06605 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 00:50:01 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id KAA25281 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Sep04.101909.1189.249677; Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:20:29 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Sep04.101909.1189.249677@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP (v2.2 Build 22005) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: GN Nettest (Boston), Inc. Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:20:29 -0400 Subject: Official Language Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Looking over the Bulletins from the WBF Championships in Lille, one short "throw-away" sentence caught my eye. During the finals of the Woman's Teams Championships between the Erhardt team representing Austria and Sabine Auken's team, there was a dispute arising over which card had been called for from dummy. As part of their decision, the director's rebuked both teams for not conducting the match using English as the common language. To me, it seems completely assine to suggest that two teams consisting of native German speakers should have to conduct a match in English. Question for the mailing list: Is English the "official language" of bridge? If so, does this mean that a club game in Russia or China should be conducted using words like "Jack" or "Queen"? If English is not always the official language of bridge, does it act as the official language in certain cases? Richard Willey Who can speak passable German, but does admit to some difficulty trying to understand the Swiss and Austrians. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 01:26:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:26:00 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06777 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:25:53 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA26381 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904112931.006e9258@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:29:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980824092735.006c6864@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:13 AM 9/3/98 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau 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. 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*. > > I don't agree with this at all. A TD/AC is considering a set of >possible occurrences. The fact that one of them occurred should not >blind them to the other possibilities. > > [s] > >>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. > > But this is only because you have made a considerable assumption which >does not seem justifiable. You should consider all possibilities. > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>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. > > This is irrelevant. We are considering what might have happened if >the circumstances are different. The actual event does not tell us >that. That's my point: We need consider only what might have happened if the circumstances were different. We need not consider what "might" have happened (in some theoretical sense) if the circumstances had been the same, because we already know what will (did) happen under those circumstances. Judgment is needed in deciding whether, absent the infraction being adjudicated, circumstances *would* have been different. > Remember Granovetter and Tom. They were doubled in 4H, the double was >slow and pulled to 4S. They bid 5H, were doubled, and went one down. >The AC gave them 4H doubled making. After they discovered that 4H >doubled plus one would have given them the event they went to a second >AC [no, I have no idea how the ACBL justified a second AC!] and argued >that they would have played it differently, and eleven tricks would be a >normal result played in 4H doubled. if you look at the hand their case >was sound. [For those who like a good, legal, fair conclusion, the >second AC, rather than assigning a score, made them joint winners of the >event.] All that sounds perfectly reasonable to me (except, perhaps, for the sentence in brackets). The original committee ruled that the circumstances of the play in 4H would be the same as in 5H, and therefore would, perforce, lead to the same 10 tricks. Matt and Merle were able to convince the second committee (notwithstanding the questionableness of there being a second committee in the first place) that the circumstances would have been different, and that, therefore, the first committee erred in failing to consider what might have occurred under those different circumstances. The second committee then determined that there was reason to believe that they'd have played the hand differently in 4H than they did in 5H. I do not believe that, had the second committee not believed that they would have had reason to play the hand differently in 4H, they would (or should) have awarded an AS of 4H+1 just because some other (a priori "likely" per L12C2) line of play for 11 tricks (which would have been an equally reasonable line at 5H) was available. This is where I disagree with some other BLML members who have commented on this thread. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 01:40:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:40:08 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06864 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:39:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA08224 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA05881 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809041542.LAA05881@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OLOOT X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Back to East. He now leads. Does it have to be the same card as he > originally tried to lead? Should the TD check it? Yes, a nice problem. East may lead whatever he wishes. The existence of the penalty card (but not "other information arising") is AI to East (L50D1), and he is entitled to choose a lead on that basis (L72A5). To avoid UI to West, the TD should have East pick up his original card and replace it in his hand before leading. No one should know whether he made the same lead or not. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 01:42:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:42:51 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06883 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:42:44 +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 LAA26960 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904114622.006a0ad8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:46:22 -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 10:20 AM 9/3/98 +0100, David wrote: >Jesper wrote: > >> When partner is silenced, you have lost just about all of of your >> bidding system. A psyche is a call that violates your system >> agreements, but surely just about all agreements are suspended >> when partner is silenced. >> >> If I open 1H out of turn, partner gets banned, and I then call >> 3NT, is that a "psyche" just because my hand is nothing like the >> hand that a 3NT opening shows in my system? I'd say no. >> >> When parner is silenced you are own your own in guessing what >> call will turn out best, and IMO it does not really make any >> sense to label some calls as "psyches". >> >> ######## There is a world of difference in trying to recover the >> situation by guessing the final contract with the intent to play >> there, eg. by bidding 3NT on a strong balanced hand when 3NT would >> normally be gambling, and deliberately psyching a bid where you do not >> intend to play there knowing that your psyche is risk free because >> partner cannot be fooled by it. In the original example, the psycher, >> with a heart void, knows that partner is likely to have some heart >> length and, therefore, without the infraction silencing him, partner >> is all too likely to pre-emtively raise hearts. Solely because of his >> infraction, the psycher now knows that this risk no longer exists and, >> hence, any damage to the NOs because of this should be adjusted under >> Law 23. However, in the particular case quoted, there is probably no >> way that the psycher could foresee the outcome that followed and, >> therefore, IMO no adjustment should be given. ######### But there's very little difference, under the adverse circumstances of having to decide on an appropriate action opposite a barred partner, between guessing at the final contract and bidding it because you think that's your best chance to recover a good score and doing something else (including a psychic bid) because you think *that's* your best chance to recover a good score. Nor is there anything in the laws or the ethical canons to suggest that when partner is barred you have some obligation to name your guess of the best contract for your side at your next turn to bid. I believe that when partner is barred you are free to do whatever you think gives you your best chance to win the board, and, moreover, that your right to do so is explicitly granted by L72A5. 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 Sep 5 01:48:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:48:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06919 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:48:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA08249 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA05895 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809041551.LAA05895@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I believe this to be the point of the hand. There is no Law that > makes this action illegal, but some people are uncomfortable with it, > and it is possible that there should be. Perhaps the Laws should also ban false cards by declarer. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 01:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:51:11 +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 ESMTP id BAA06935 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:51:03 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEyBL-0001KH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:53:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:27:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille In-Reply-To: <199809041336.JAA07284@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: >-- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >All the Lille appeals that appeared in the bulletins may be found at > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/appeals.htm Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and not published, all written by Herman or me. If we can get hold of them we would like thses to appear somewhere as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 5 01:51:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:51:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06934 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:51:03 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEyBL-0001KI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:53:52 +0000 Message-ID: <32XA6LAefA81EwpJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:31:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Official Language In-Reply-To: <1998Sep04.101909.1189.249677@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > >Looking over the Bulletins from the WBF Championships in Lille, one short >"throw-away" sentence caught my eye. During the finals of the Woman's >Teams Championships between the Erhardt team representing Austria and >Sabine Auken's team, there was a dispute arising over which card had been >called for from dummy. As part of their decision, the director's rebuked >both teams for not conducting the match using English as the common >language. To me, it seems completely assine to suggest that two teams >consisting of native German speakers should have to conduct a match in >English. > >Question for the mailing list: Is English the "official language" of >bridge? It is the official language of international bridge. >If so, does this mean that a club game in Russia or China should be >conducted using words like "Jack" or "Queen"? No, that is not international bridge. >If English is not always the official language of bridge, does it act as >the official language in certain cases? Yes, in international tournaments. There are exceptions. Certain tournaments are run between limited numbers of countries who have common languages, and English is not the official language there. My understanding is that both Jesper and Sergei who read this list run such tournaments. >Who can speak passable German, but does admit to some difficulty trying >to understand the Swiss and Austrians. Well, some of us have difficulty understanding some alleged English- speaking countries .... :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 5 02:01:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:01:48 +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 CAA07134 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:01:42 +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 MAA27439 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904120519.006a0d90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 12:05:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980903074608.007f7100@maine.rr.com> References: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:46 AM 9/3/98 -0400, Tim wrote: >The ACBL published an article or two about 10-12 NTs a few years ago (in >the Bulletin authored by Jeff Meckstroth). One of the assertions made was >along the lines of: if 1NT-2M is non-forcing and opener cannot bid again, >responder may not psyche in this position because system protects the >psyche. I may have this a little wrong, but I'm sure I have the gist of it >right. (I'm pretty sure ACBL has this a lot wrong.) So, I think ACBL has >taken a position in the situation you describe. The ACBL is particularly nutso about two particular subjects: 10-12 NTs and psyches. A lot of people, myself included, felt that by publishing Jeff's article in their official organ of communication to their membership they were in flagrant violation of L40, notwithstanding any disclaimer that the article actually represented Jeff's personal view of the laws rather than the ACBL's official position. This is, remember, the same ACBL that has ruled it illegal to open a 10-12 NT with a chunky 9 HCP even when nobody would attempt to dispute that its playing strength in 1NT is equivalent to that of an average 11-count. 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 Sep 5 03:14:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:14:06 +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 ESMTP id DAA07318 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:14:00 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEzTc-0001qa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:16:49 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:49:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:49:35 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: SNIP > But there's very little difference, under the adverse circumstances of > having to decide on an appropriate action opposite a barred partner, > between guessing at the final contract and bidding it because you > think > that's your best chance to recover a good score and doing something > else > (including a psychic bid) because you think *that's* your best chance > to > recover a good score. Nor is there anything in the laws or the > ethical > canons to suggest that when partner is barred you have some obligation > to > name your guess of the best contract for your side at your next turn > to bid. > > I believe that when partner is barred you are free to do whatever you > think > gives you your best chance to win the board, and, moreover, that your > right > to do so is explicitly granted by L72A5. > > > ########## If we follow this arguement to its logical conclusion then > surely Law 23 should be removed from the Law Book as it is completely > redundant, ie. when would Eric or others ever feel able to adjust a > score under Law 23? I would also observe that the EBL Commentary > recognised the concept of Psyches fielded in advance. Similarly IIRC, > when under the OLD Law 27 an OS was able to reach a contract through > an infraction that it could not otherwise have reached, eg. when > playing ASTRO, you make an insufficient bid and correct it to a > natural 2C, the EBL Commentary's advice was to adjust the score. > ############# From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 03:30:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:30:31 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07370 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:30:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA15845 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA06031 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:33:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809041733.NAA06031@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > A lot of people, myself included, felt that by publishing Jeff's > article in their official organ of communication to their membership they > were in flagrant violation of L40, notwithstanding any disclaimer that the > article actually represented Jeff's personal view of the laws rather than > the ACBL's official position. They also failed to publish at least one letter disputing Meckstroth's position. (I know because I wrote such a letter. It wouldn't surprise me to learn others had written as well.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 03:44:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:44:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07419 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:44:33 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zEzxB-0004GB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:47:21 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:23:06 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:23:04 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > Have you realised what you are suggesting? The psyche is completely > irrelevant. If you are going solely on a very pedantic approach to > "could have known" then what you are suggesting is that we should > adjust > every time someone opens out of turn with a weak hand! > > > ######### I am not sure that I understand the point that you are > making. If I make an OBOOT with a weak hand then how can I know that > this will work to my advantage? If partner has a big hand then we > could easily be missing a cold game or slam or even a good sacrifice. > Surely the point is that legal psyches are normally double edged > swords in that there is as much risk that partner will be fooled as > the opponents. If the down-side risk is reduced or removed because a > member of the OS is silenced then the penalty that is supposed to > protect the NOs is now working against them, at least during the > auction, and the offender who subsequently psyches always knows that > this is the case. Moreover, if the psyche was preplanned then the > offender would have known this at the time that the offence was > committed. Now unless then TD can mind read, how are we to > distinguish psyches planned after the offence from psyches planned > before it? If the TD has to make arbitrary decisions then I can see > much litigation for defamation of character coming up. Hence, my > understanding that TDs never accuse any particular player of > deliberately committing an offence nor pay great heed to ex post facto > self-serving explanations of events but, rather, rely on an objective > test of whether or not players generally in that particular situation > could have known that the NOs could be damaged. What is incorrect or > pedantic about this view? ############## From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 04:40:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 04:40:49 +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 EAA07675 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 04:40:43 +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 OAA01399 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904144421.006e0c6c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 14:44:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Reserving rights In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:28 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David wrote: > There is a UI sequence that finishes with North bidding 4H very >slowly, and South bidding 6H which appears to use the hesitation. The >hesitation by North is agreed. > > The defence leads a card, dummy [South] appears, and the defender on >lead realises that dummy's bidding is surely illegal. He must have used >UI! However, it seems to be going off: he has led one of his two aces, >and his singleton king of trumps looks good for a trick. > > Declarer ruffs, cashes the ace of trumps, and makes his slam. The >defence ask for a ruling. Has the failure to call the TD at the sight >of dummy affected anything? Not in the ACBL. I can't contribute directly to Mr. Riccardi's question, since this is a case where the laws apply differently in Europe; does it matter whether the defender reserved his rights during the auction per L16A1? The ACBL has elected, per L16A1, not to permit reservation of rights. The ACBL regulation says, "They [the NOs] should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." The usual interpretation of this is that the director need be called only when the NOs determine that there could have been damage. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 05:13:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:13:11 +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 FAA07856 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:13:06 +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 MAA24713; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809041915.MAA24713@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:13:55 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > > > > >All the Lille appeals that appeared in the bulletins may be found at > > > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/appeals.htm > > Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and > myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and > not published, all written by Herman or me. If we can get hold of them > we would like thses to appear somewhere as well. > The same problem has been true of NABC appeals, in that only cases published in the Bulletin have been available for viewing on the internet. However, the grapevine tells me that all NABC appeals will be published in the future, maybe going back to Chicago or even Reno. That's good news, but I was hoping the new policy (if it is one) would include Lille. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 05:56:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:56:36 +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 FAA08034 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:56:29 +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 QAA03232 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904160008.006e3afc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:00:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: <199809031926.PAA19830@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:26 PM 9/3/98 -0500, CHYAH wrote: > Appeal No. 23 >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reported by Rich Colker >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Appeals Committee: > >Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Virgil Anderson (USA), Rich Colker (USA), >John Lenart (New Zealand), Dan Morse (USA) >---------------------------------------------------------------------- [hand snipped] >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Facts: 4S made five, +650 for E/W. > >The TD was called at the end of the play. > >N/S contended that they were damaged because they were not given the >proper explanation of E/W's methods. > >In the post-mortem, West indicated that he had misbid when he opened >2S, intending it as weak. When he realized his mistake (almost as soon >as he began describing his bid as weak to South) he changed his >explanation in mid sentence to reflect E/W's agreement (strong/ACOL). > >East also explained the 2S bid as strong to North. > >The E/W convention cards had 2H/2S marked as ACOL on page 2. (The >section of the front page of E/W's convention card marked "SPECIAL >BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENSE" listed 2H and 2S openings as showing >five/five two-suiters, 6-10 points, including the major opened and a >lower suit. However, N/S agreed that neither North nor South ever >looked at these cards.) > >East expressed surprise at the mismarked front page of their card, >reconfirmed that they WERE playing strong major suit opening two bids, >and suggested that the error must have been due to their "doing the >card through the computer." >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >TD's decision: > >The TD determined that the mismarked section on the front of E/W's >convention card was a computer error which could not have affected the >table result, since neither opponent looked at E/W's convention cards. > >Since East and West both explained 2S as strong, and since the second >page of the E/W cards were both consistent with this explanation >(marked as ACOL), the TD ruled that N/S had been properly informed of >the meaning of 2S as per E/W's agreements. > >The fact that this did not correspond with West's hand was true, but >irrelevant. West was obligated to explain the meaning in his >partnership of his bid and was not obligated to disclose the contents >of his hand. > >The TD allowed the table result to stand. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- Just right. [players' arguments and "committee's" reasoning snipped] >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Committee's decision: > >The Committee (Chairman) adjusted the score for E/W to average minus >based on the following: > >(1) West forgot his methods; OK. That's not illegal. >(2) West did not disclose the intended meaning of his 2S bid on his > side of the screen, as per Active Ethics; Active ethics has no bearing here whatsoever. Mr. Wolff, who coined the term, has himself described active ethics as a prescription for players who wish to *voluntarily* go *beyond what the law requires* to uphold extra-legal standards of fairness and sportsmanship and to serve as an example to others. It's a fine idea, but legally irrelevant. >(3) E/W's convention card was not filled out properly; and How can this have damaged anyone, or had any effect on the case whatsoever, if nobody read the thing? Or was the intent simply to punish, the stated scope of the laws notwithstanding? >(4) East chose a conservative 4S bid with a hand that warranted a slam > try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with > East's (conservative) action. That smells of the "rule of coincidence". Whatever we may think of it, it's *not* part of the laws, and, AFAIK, despite Mr. Wolff's repeated efforts, it has never been accepted as interpretation by *any* official body anywhere. >The Chairman also adjusted N/S's score to the better of the table >result or average minus, in recognition of N/S's responsibility in not >having adequately discussed their conventional defenses to the >opponents' strong, natural opening bids. So N-S was punished by fiat, over and above their AssAS, for doing something which is not illegal, but of which the chairman, in his capacity as an expert on bidding, disapproved. He should be made to write "not as punishment but as redress" on the blackboard 100 times. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dissenting Opinions (Colker, Anderson): > >We disagree with the Committee's decision. While it is disruptive and >generally not good for our game when players forget their methods, >these things do happen. > >Under the present laws, as long as the opponents are properly informed >of the systemic meaning of a player's bid (not necessarily his actual >hand) there has been no infraction unless the partnership is found to >have an undisclosed understanding, which was clearly not the case >here. > >We also find it likely that West's initial few words to South, his >halting speech pattern and sudden change in explanation conveyed to >his screenmate the idea that his hand did not match his bid. We would >have preferred it had West simply and completely volunteered his error >to his screenmate, but the laws do not require players to do this, and >Active Ethics is not yet the law. > >Similarly, we find East's conservative 4S bid not to be an egregious >action; rather, we would characterize it as a nonaggressive (perhaps >less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. > >We believe that the problem with the E/W convention cards stemmed from >the pair's failure to notice and remove a reference on the front of >the card to the two suited major-suit openings played by their spouses >when modifying the computer file from the spouses' card. The methods >were not part of E/W's system, nor did the presence of the error have >any bearing on the present situation (except for the inquiries needed >to determine this). > >Finally, we believe N/S's problems stemmed solely from their failure >to have adequately discussed their conventional defenses to strong >opening bids. > >We regret that we cannot find any basis in the laws for adjusting >either side's score from that which occurred at the table. We believe >that the TDs got this one exactly right. We, too, would have allowed >the table result to stand for both pairs and then strongly advised E/W >to be more careful with their bidding in the future and to immediately >correct the deficiencies with their convention cards. >====================================================================== OK, you got me, very funny, ha ha. Until I read this bit, I thought this was a serious posting. Did someone think we would believe this? That a committee voted a decision, but then the chairman, a respectable member of the bridge community, perfidiously reported out his single-handed minority dissenting opinion as the official decision of the committee? At a world competition?? And the players, and the tournament organizers, stood by and swallowed this??? And the WBF took no disciplinary action against him for betraying the trust they placed in him when they put him on the committee in the first place???? I'm confident that if this had really happened, this person would be persona non grata in the WBF by now! It's not nice to try to fool us naive BLML readers. 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 Sep 5 06:07:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:07:46 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA08107 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:07:40 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zF2B8-0004i3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:10:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:21:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > > SNIP > >> Have you realised what you are suggesting? The psyche is completely >> irrelevant. If you are going solely on a very pedantic approach to >> "could have known" then what you are suggesting is that we should >> adjust >> every time someone opens out of turn with a weak hand! >> >> >> ######### I am not sure that I understand the point that you are >> making. If I make an OBOOT with a weak hand then how can I know that >> this will work to my advantage? If partner has a big hand then we >> could easily be missing a cold game or slam or even a good sacrifice. >> Surely the point is that legal psyches are normally double edged >> swords in that there is as much risk that partner will be fooled as >> the opponents. If the down-side risk is reduced or removed because a >> member of the OS is silenced then the penalty that is supposed to >> protect the NOs is now working against them, at least during the >> auction, and the offender who subsequently psyches always knows that >> this is the case. Moreover, if the psyche was preplanned then the >> offender would have known this at the time that the offence was >> committed. Now unless then TD can mind read, how are we to >> distinguish psyches planned after the offence from psyches planned >> before it? If the TD has to make arbitrary decisions then I can see >> much litigation for defamation of character coming up. Hence, my >> understanding that TDs never accuse any particular player of >> deliberately committing an offence nor pay great heed to ex post facto >> self-serving explanations of events but, rather, rely on an objective >> test of whether or not players generally in that particular situation >> could have known that the NOs could be damaged. What is incorrect or >> pedantic about this view? ############## I think my problem is that I am never quite sure what you are suggesting. All right, you are not suggesting what I thought: why not tell us what you are suggesting? It really is not clear. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 06:09:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:09:29 +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 GAA08150 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:09:21 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA03553 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904161302.006e579c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:13:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: References: <01BDD73C.51BD1E00@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:27 PM 9/3/98 +0100, David wrote: > Suppose you open Stop 2C. Your partner says "You should not say >Stop." You say you jumped. Partner said your RHO opened 1S. You look >down, and yes, he has. Your partners discussion with you is UI. The >bidding card saying 1S is AI. You are honest: you would never have >looked down without partner's comment. > > Do you think this is not a problem? Of course it's a problem. Partner has UI that your hand doesn't conform to your agreed understanding of the meaning of the auction 1S-2C, and must act accordingly. It may be a problem that partner has violated procedure by giving a review of the auction unasked; that could merit a PP. But it's not, in and of itself, a problem that everyone now knows what the auction was. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 06:15:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:15:08 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA08178 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:15:02 +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 QAA03686 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904161843.006e4354@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:18:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Bizzare Bidding Box Proc In-Reply-To: <9809031807.0PGZ801@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:07 PM 9/3/98, r.pewick wrote: > > While waiting for the players to ready themselves for the auction >the dealer's RHO removes a PASS card from the dealer's bidding box and >says, 'You are going to pass anyway' and slaps it down more or less in >front of the dealer. The dealer summons the TD and says that RHO passed >out of turn while saying, 'You are going to pass anyway.' The TD >ascertains that RO did in fact reach into the dealer's bidding box and >'bid' the PASS and said it to the dealer. > >What does the sage of TDs rule? Nobody bid anything, out of turn or otherwise. RHO's actions were a gross violation of procedure, and he gets a healthy PP under L90 along with a warning that a repeat offense will lead to suspension or expulsion. LHO is warned that his partner's actions are UI and L16A may apply. The auction proceeds normally, starting with the dealer. 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 Sep 5 06:54:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:54:13 +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 GAA08394 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 06:54:07 +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 RAA04671 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904165747.006ec118@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:57:47 -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 05:49 PM 9/4/98 +0100, David wrote: >> ########## If we follow this arguement to its logical conclusion then >> surely Law 23 should be removed from the Law Book as it is completely >> redundant, ie. when would Eric or others ever feel able to adjust a >> score under Law 23? I would also observe that the EBL Commentary >> recognised the concept of Psyches fielded in advance. Similarly IIRC, >> when under the OLD Law 27 an OS was able to reach a contract through >> an infraction that it could not otherwise have reached, eg. when >> playing ASTRO, you make an insufficient bid and correct it to a >> natural 2C, the EBL Commentary's advice was to adjust the score. >> ############# David makes a good point. I admit to taking an unusual and idiosyncratic approach to L23 which is somewhat at odds with its literal reading. The history of law revisions, and associated commentary, has convinced me that the words "the offender could have known" are French for "in the opinion of the TD/committee, the offender probably knew". In other words, the new wording was not intended to change the impact of the rules, but, rather, represents a sad but true understanding on the part of our governing bodies that by saying it in French they leave themselves far less exposed to being sued for defamation for lack of proof of what somebody who has been so ruled against actually "knew". In other words, L23 exists for, and should only be applied in, situations where we believe that someone might otherwise get away with "pulling a fast one". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 08:55:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:55:45 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08639 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:55:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA24873 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA06368 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:58:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809042258.SAA06368@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > out of the box with apparent intent." > > WBF: "A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) is > removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may > apply)." Thank you. I had never noticed the "apparent" before, and I thought I was familiar with the ACBL regulations. (Feel free to think rude thoughts! I feel pretty silly not to have noticed.) Was the word added recently? Doubtful. The next paragraph of the regulation is inconsistent with the new L25A, so I suspect the regulation hasn't been updated lately. > >(David and I have had this argument before; it will be familiar to all > >longtime readers. I don't suppose either of us will convince the other, > >but maybe somebody else could weigh in.) > > Perhaps you could explain this to me? > > The EBU, ACBL and WBF regulations use the term "with apparent intent": > are you suggesting we ignore such regulations? Certainly I'm not suggesting regulations be ignored. I may be suggesting that they need to be changed, but "apparent" helps a lot. The general argument is that I think mind reading is impossible, and no score adjustment matter should depend on intent. (Conduct matters are different and may very well depend on intent.) David, if I understand his position correctly, says that competent TD's will usually judge intent correctly, and that decisions based on intent are not harmful. I agree with his premise (and expect he agrees with mine), but we reach different conclusions based on different values about how decisions should be reached. "Apparent intent" may be a reasonable compromise for this very sticky (heh!) question. If I understand it, it means something like "What would an observer who had watched the whole incident -- but not spoken to the perpetrator -- conclude?" That seems reasonable to me. Perhaps it is just as reasonable as a factual test based on the exact location of the bidding card, which in principle is an objective question of fact but which in practice will be very hard to determine. It would be best, it seems to me, if "made" could based on some objectively determinable fact on which all players would be likely to agree, but I don't see any obvious way to achieve that. The former EBU regulation strikes me as preferable in the abstract to the new one because it seems slightly easier to judge, but probably the new one is better given its popularity in other jurisdictions. Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought and a call that was not "made" in the first place. The difference, I suppose, is that until a call is "made," it can be changed _even if there was pause for thought._ That means we really ought to have an objective criterion for "made" if we can find one. A computer interface would be ideal but perhaps not practical. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 09:04:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:04:03 +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 JAA08670 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:03:57 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA25032 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA06392 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:07:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809042307.TAA06392@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > The appeals committee > (or at least the chairman) felt that the partner of the psycher should > have explained (to the weak opposition) that 2C "did not exist", The opponents are surely entitled to know this fact. Quite likely it requires an alert, although regulations may not be clear. > and although partner had not psyched for six years, And I think this one too (L75C), along with whether partner did in fact psych six years ago or whether that is merely the limit of partnership experience. > she probably had now. But this cannot be right. If there is other objective information based on partnership experience, the opponents are entitled to know it, but they are not entitled to any inferences a player may make. Can this possibly be controversial? (I suppose so, given case 23.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 09:12:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:12:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08697 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:12:52 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA24922 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA06403 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:15:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809042315.TAA06403@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OLOOT X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN > When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner > leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply. This is interesting. Should the first "and" be read as "and then?" In other words, how do this and L58A interact? Anyway, the "retracted" seems to answer the original question quite clearly if we apply L54 at all. If we read "and" as "and then," then as Dave G. (and someone else?) said, it looks as though the face down lead should be made, and the faced card from third hand is treated as a penalty card after the lead. The second solution seems more equitable to me if you can establish that the legal lead was really before or simultaneous with the illegal one. If not, then of course L54 is the only way to go. I agree that the quoted paragraph should be a section (54E?) and not a preamble. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 11:27:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:27:09 +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 LAA08894 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:27:03 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmkm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.150]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA10546 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 21:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980904212827.006ff25c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 21:28:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <199809042307.TAA06392@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:07 PM 9/4/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Robin Barker >> The appeals committee >> (or at least the chairman) felt that the partner of the psycher should >> have explained (to the weak opposition) that 2C "did not exist", > >The opponents are surely entitled to know this fact. Quite likely >it requires an alert, although regulations may not be clear. "Surely"??? This is not at all obvious. The opponents are entitled to know our agreements, and if they ask about a bid about which we have no agreement, as in the present case, they are entitled to the correct response that we have no agreement. But it seems doubtful to me that anyone should have an obligation to volunteer such information every time partner apparently wanders off the reservation. Now if through prior experience, this 2C call strongly suggests to me that partner has psyched, then of course I have to share that. I think the phrasing "does not exist" is perhaps misleading. Of course this bid "exists"; it occurred, after all. Ir is merely undefined in this partnership's methods. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 12:25:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:25:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08984 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:25:22 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zF85D-0000rp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 02:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 03:21:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: <199809042258.SAA06368@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken >> out of the box with apparent intent." >> >> WBF: "A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) is >> removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may >> apply)." > >Thank you. I had never noticed the "apparent" before, and I thought I >was familiar with the ACBL regulations. (Feel free to think rude >thoughts! I feel pretty silly not to have noticed.) Was the word >added recently? Doubtful. The next paragraph of the regulation is >inconsistent with the new L25A, so I suspect the regulation hasn't been >updated lately. > >> >(David and I have had this argument before; it will be familiar to all >> >longtime readers. I don't suppose either of us will convince the other, >> >but maybe somebody else could weigh in.) >> >> Perhaps you could explain this to me? >> >> The EBU, ACBL and WBF regulations use the term "with apparent intent": >> are you suggesting we ignore such regulations? > >Certainly I'm not suggesting regulations be ignored. I may be suggesting >that they need to be changed, but "apparent" helps a lot. > >The general argument is that I think mind reading is impossible, and no >score adjustment matter should depend on intent. (Conduct matters are >different and may very well depend on intent.) David, if I understand >his position correctly, says that competent TD's will usually judge >intent correctly, and that decisions based on intent are not harmful. >I agree with his premise (and expect he agrees with mine), but we reach >different conclusions based on different values about how decisions >should be reached. > >"Apparent intent" may be a reasonable compromise for this very sticky >(heh!) question. If I understand it, it means something like "What >would an observer who had watched the whole incident -- but not spoken >to the perpetrator -- conclude?" That seems reasonable to me. Perhaps >it is just as reasonable as a factual test based on the exact location >of the bidding card, which in principle is an objective question of >fact but which in practice will be very hard to determine. It would be >best, it seems to me, if "made" could based on some objectively >determinable fact on which all players would be likely to agree, but I >don't see any obvious way to achieve that. The former EBU regulation >strikes me as preferable in the abstract to the new one because it >seems slightly easier to judge, but probably the new one is better >given its popularity in other jurisdictions. > >Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference >between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought >and a call that was not "made" in the first place. The difference, I >suppose, is that until a call is "made," it can be changed _even if >there was pause for thought._ That means we really ought to have an >objective criterion for "made" if we can find one. A computer >interface would be ideal but perhaps not practical. Humph. I think that you are moving a long way away from what I understand the regulation to mean. The reason I was surprised at your comment is that when a regulation includes the term "apparent intent" I expect everyone to accept that it is a position where intent is to be considered. I believe it is a simple easily workable regulation whereby a call that clears the bidding box is always made, except in obvious situations. We have had one example: where a player takes sticky cards out, and before even putting them down removes the one he does not want. A second example is where the bidding box is knocked over. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 5 13:04:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:04:06 +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 NAA09054 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 13:04:00 +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 UAA13411; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809050306.UAA13411@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Reserving rights Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:05:11 -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: > > The ACBL has elected, per L16A1, not to permit reservation of rights. The > ACBL regulation says, "They [the NOs] should summon the Director > immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information > available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in > damage to their side." I would not call this an ACBL "regulation," since it is part of the ACBL version of the Laws as shown in the "Elections" in the back of the book. Hence it's a law. Maybe. > The usual interpretation of this is that the director need be called > only when the NOs determine that there could have been damage. > If I interpret this "usual interpretation" correctly, one calls the TD when evidence shows up, not just when there is a mere suspicion. That really doesn't fit the words used by the ACBL, which say that the TD must be called when a call or play is made that could be based on the UI. That is, call the TD when a suspect call or play is made; don't wait until the evidence becomes rather clear (e.g., when dummy hits the table). However, I think the "usual interpretation" is the right way to go. With so many harmless breaks occurring, it isn't feasible to call the TD every time someone makes a call or play that could be based on UI. There's nothing the TD can do at that time anyway. For those who think that compromises in applying the Law are undesirable (and I am one), please note that the ACBL "election" does not accord with L16A2, (still in effect for the ACBL), which says the TD should be called forthwith "when a player has substantial reason to believe (footnoted: When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed.) that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information." The Laws permit an SO to opt out of L16A1, but do not permit the writing of a new law to replace both 16A1 and 16A2, as the "election" does. That is, the ACBL can say one can't "reserve the right" to call the TD, which is a pretty silly idea anyway, but cannot dictate that the TD should be called before there is evidence that an infraction has possibly occurred. The "usual interpretation" therefore ignores an illegal option while according with L16A2. There is a sensible addition to this policy: When a break seems to have occurred, reach agreement at the table about the break. With no agreement, forget it unless you feel very strongly about it (if so, call the TD for help). I think TDs like having the existence of a break already established when they come to the table, instead of having to referee a big argument about an action that is not fresh in everyone's memory. The effect is to replace the deleted L16A1 with a voluntary action that serves the purpose of L16A1 while being more diplomatic. I hope that's legal, as it is nearly equivalent to L16A1. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 14:48:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:48:34 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09181 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:48:28 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.216] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zFAIg-0002Xw-00; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:50:15 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 05:50:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Have not given much thought to the actual ruling in this case as yet (though I have been asked to do so by the original appeals committee, so will be considering the views expressed on the list as part of this and will no doubt comment later). But a question occurs to me: would it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is silenced is for penalties? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 15:09:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 15:09:02 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA09204 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 15:08:57 +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 WAA26855; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809050511.WAA26855@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 22:09:06 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > The value would be lost if all they could get from us was some "official" > or majority opinion. I don't think anyone has suggested that "official" BLML opinions be adopted. "Majority" yes, "official" no. Someone used both words, then agreed with me that "official" was not the appropriate adjective. Since no one seems to be arguing for an official BLML stand on various subjects, why not drop that from the discussion? It's a red herring. > > I see no need to set up a mechanism for providing "official BLML opinions". See, now "majority" has dropped out! > IMO we should preserve the spirit of a completely open forum, not try to > become a "shadow" regulatory or adjudicative body. I see our unique > purpose as providing folks with a place to come with precisely those > questions that have no right and wrong answers. Fine. And so they are left with no answers. Why ask the questions? Personally, I'm looking for the right answers. If BLML can't supply them, I'm wasting my time. I'm not interested in discussions that lead nowhere. > If someone wants an authoritative or official opinion > on the laws, there are other resources to which they can turn. Oh, and what are they? I used to get answers directly from Edgar Kaplan, but he's not around anymore. When the WBF gets around to filling the role he vacated, maybe I'll drop BLML. I'm not a TD, so I don't need guidance on how to rule on complicated LOOTs and such. All I meant to ask for was some documentation of those answers that seem to have a large majority support on BLML. Nothing "official," nothing "authoritative." Just to be able to say, "Well, the great majority on BLML are of the opinion that..." I guess that's too much to ask. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 5 21:59:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 21:59:01 +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 VAA09777 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 21:58:54 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.149]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 6823400 ; Sat, 05 Sep 1998 07:59:17 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980905080532.0080d7d0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 08:05:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk elandau wrote: [big snip] >OK, you got me, very funny, ha ha. Until I read this bit, I thought this >was a serious posting. Did someone think we would believe this? That a >committee voted a decision, but then the chairman, a respectable member of >the bridge community, perfidiously reported out his single-handed minority >dissenting opinion as the official decision of the committee? At a world >competition?? And the players, and the tournament organizers, stood by and >swallowed this??? And the WBF took no disciplinary action against him for >betraying the trust they placed in him when they put him on the committee >in the first place???? I'm confident that if this had really happened, >this person would be persona non grata in the WBF by now! I wrote the following in response to a parallel thread on the OKbridge discuss list. Seems relevant here as well. The understandable but unfortunate departure of two members of the committee created a situation that the conditions of contest hadn't anticipated, but it's important to note that those conditions do *not* specify a majority decision. "The decision of the committee in any appeal shall be determined by the vote of the chairman, except in circumstances where all members of the committee support a specific contrary decision, in which case such specific contrary decision shall be the decision of the committee." Whether absent committee members can be deemed to be supporting a specific contrary opinion is a semantic issue, but insofar as one of the departing members "indicated before he left that he favored assigning N/S Average Plus and E/W Average Minus", it is not patently unreasonable for Mr. Wolff to have interpreted the conditions of contest as he apparently did. Had the other members stayed, it is probable that the formal vote would have been 2-3 or 3-2 rather than 1-2 and in either case, Mr. Wolff would have been clearly within his rights. Indeed he would have been clearly within his rights even if he had been *alone* in supporting the decision, as long as *one* of the other members failed to support the dissenting opinion. Perhaps the conditions of contest are flawed, but that's what they say. Whether Mr. Wolff's decision was correct in an abstract sense, or at least consistent with the standards applied in WBF events, is debatable and involves issues that haven't all been addressed yet (there is active discussion on BLML and no doubt will be comment from Bridge World and others). For the time, I will reserve comment on this. His reliance on the principle of Active Ethics to justify it, however, is patently flawed and does injustice both to the Laws and to his other, potentially more valid, arguments. In all of this, it is important to recognize that the WBF conditions of contest codify a stringency of requirements for convention cards and disclosure procedures with which few of us are familiar. The relevant passages are too numerous to cite here; interested readers may find the general and supplementary conditions of contest at the WBF web site. Whether the practical application of that code is supported in the Laws, and if so, by which Laws, will be an important subject for debate in light of this ruling. Now, for a bit of research: Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 01:15:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:15:10 +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 BAA12521 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:15:03 +1000 Received: from ip114.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.114]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980905151750.DRNI8705.fep4@ip114.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:17:50 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Official Language Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 17:17:50 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35f44d8f.2412919@post12.tele.dk> References: <32XA6LAefA81EwpJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <32XA6LAefA81EwpJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:31:42 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Certain tournaments are run between limited >numbers of countries who have common languages, and English is not the >official language there. My understanding is that both Jesper and >Sergei who read this list run such tournaments. In the Nordic Championships, the official language is English. I haven't seen the rules and regulations used in 1998, but I expect they were much like the 1996 ones, which contained the text: "All players are reminded that the official language of the Championships is English. During a match the players are expected to converse in this language only, unless the captains of the teams agree otherwise." In practice, many players spoke Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish to each other. Those languages are much alike and almost all the players (including those whose first language is Finnish, Icelandic, or Faroese) understand them fairly well. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 05:13:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:13:22 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f14.hotmail.com [207.82.250.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13561 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:13:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 18636 invoked by uid 0); 5 Sep 1998 19:15:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19980905191537.18635.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.166 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Sep 1998 12:15:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.166] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 12:15:36 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin, some of this may sound personal, and some of it may sound like a personal attack. The first is I think necessary, as this is all opinion. The second I mean to have avoided, and if I haven't succeeded, I apologize. >From: "Marvin L. French" >Eric Landau wrote: >> IMO we should preserve the spirit of a completely open forum, not >try to >> become a "shadow" regulatory or adjudicative body. I see our >unique >> purpose as providing folks with a place to come with precisely >those >> questions that have no right and wrong answers. > >Fine. And so they are left with no answers. Why ask the questions? To provoke discussion. To hear alternative opinions. To find out if there *are* alternative opinions. To point out ambiguities in the Laws. To point out to an international forum differences between nations and between national SOs. To improve one's TD skills by listening to the opinions (and the reasoning behind the opinions) of several TDs, some of whom are in the "best in the world" category (and some of whom are studious, but very inexperienced, like me). To make or remake one's own opinion, based on discussion with others. To improve one's arguments for one's opinion prior to giving them to some formal forum for change (if change, or no change is, in one's opinion, desirable). Appeals committees exist to handle (among other things) situations where the judgement is not clear. Their job is to come up with an answer - not necessarily right - as we have often determined here. Our mandate is to discuss, advise, provoke, think, learn and teach. We have enough decision bodies around - we don't need another one so you, or I, or anyone else, can say "see, I'm right! This is what (xxx) thinks." >Personally, I'm looking for the right answers. If BLML can't supply >them, I'm wasting my time. I'm not interested in discussions that >lead nowhere. > Maybe you are. The WBFLC makes "right" answers. In our jurisdiction, the ACBL LC makes "right" answers. If they make wrong "right" answers, or "right" answers you or I or anyone else considers wrong, there are ways to change that. I do wish that the ACBL would make those ways easier, and would listen to them more often. But that has nothing to do with making BLML into another club to beat them into submission with. >> If someone wants an authoritative or official opinion >> on the laws, there are other resources to which they can turn. > >Oh, and what are they? I used to get answers directly from Edgar >Kaplan, but he's not around anymore. When the WBF gets around to >filling the role he vacated, maybe I'll drop BLML. I'm not a TD, so >I don't need guidance on how to rule on complicated LOOTs and such. > Well, by their mandates, the WBFLC and the ACBL LC give authoritative, official opinions. If they don't do that now, try to get them to do their job. Please don't try to make us into something we're not. >All I meant to ask for was some documentation of those answers that >seem to have a large majority support on BLML. Nothing "official," >nothing "authoritative." Just to be able to say, "Well, the great >majority on BLML are of the opinion that..." > That exists (I think - Markus, am I completely wrong?). It's in the BLML Archive. Just pull the topic you want out of the archive, and you can determine what the "great majority", the "majority", the "majority of Nationally-rated TDs", or even (and often) "the two (or three)" opinion(s) of people on BLML is. >I guess that's too much to ask. >From "info bridge-laws", the notice given to all of us when we join: This list is intended specifically for relatively technical discussion of bridge Law and procedures. Most questions about "What should the correct ruling be?" belong in the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.bridge, as does any other bridge matter that is likely to be of wide interest to typical players or fans. On the other hand, material of interest only to directors and others closely concerned with the rules of the game goes to this list. IMO, there's nothing in there about "answers" or "opinion" - just discussion. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 05:51:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:51:37 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13689 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 05:51:32 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 12:54:21 -0700 Message-ID: <35F19777.C7276B04@home.com> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 12:56:39 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Lille Appeal no. 23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everyone! I'm back after a "vacation". I am extremely concerned about Bobby Wolff's latest "Rambo"-tactics, the fact that he was allowed to serve on a later AC (no. 27) anyway, and other aspects of the handling of AC no. 23. I find the actions taken by Mr Wolff reprehensible and inexcusable (though not surprising), and am considering what the best course of action is to prevent a repeat as well as repair the damage done (in confusing players abt what the rules are).Just because ACBL doesn't mind sending contradicting messages to it's members doesn't mean the rest of the world has to suffer the same treatment. Granted, with the US administration attempting to rule the rest of the "new" world by it's domestic values and rules, can one blame the ACBL for following suit (no pun intended)? :-) Mr Wolff (like Mr Clinton)is not above the law. If "John Doe" would recklessly and deliberately abuse his power as a "judge", he would be removed from his position. I hope the WBF will not let itself be held hostage to one man's lone crusade (even within the ACBL there are disagreements as to what "Active Ethics" calls for in the given situation), no matter how high up in the hierarchy he is (or has been). I feel this is a "test-case" for the integrity of the WBF, and sincerely hope it will pass the test by holding Mr Wolff accountable thru whatever due process applies. I can proceed thru IBPA, and/or WBF, and/or various NCBO's organs, but I feel I should first seek guidance within this group, particularly since it includes Grattan and David. Furthermore, since you might have already discussed the matter on BLML while I've been absent, I feel I should first try to catch up with any such postings. Is there a way I can retrieve any such messages (only)? Tks in advance and regards Jan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 06:08:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 06:08:14 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13744 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 06:08:07 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h38.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id AAA18174; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 00:10:55 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F22A7D.7665@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:23:57 -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: "The intention of the WBFLC" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_13.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_13.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all: Marvin French wrote: >I don't think anyone has suggested that "official" BLML opinions >be adopted. "Majority" yes, "official" no. >Personally, I'm looking for the right answers. If BLML can't supply >them, I'm wasting my time. I'm not interested in discussions that >lead nowhere. >I used to get answers directly from Edgar Kaplan, but he's not >around anymore. When the WBF gets around to filling the role he >vacated, maybe I'll drop BLML. I'm not a TD, so >I don't need guidance on how to rule on complicated LOOTs and such. >All I meant to ask for was some documentation of those answers that >seem to have a large majority support on BLML. Nothing "official," >nothing "authoritative." Just to be able to say, "Well, the great >majority on BLML are of the opinion that..." >I guess that's too much to ask. Well said, Marvin (sorry in advance, it is only the form of address without even slightest hint of superiority). I will not argue with you but let us assume: you are right and your idea is realized. So: 1. Once upon a time there appears a question in BLML. Will the possible answer voted at once - or there will be organized discussion before it? (Problems - who will organize such discussion and will decide what question should be discussed? Let us stay that these problems will be resolved in the same manner as now - that means - by voluntary and free wills of BLML participants) I guess that you will agree - discussion is helpful for future choice. Then: 2. There happens discussion about the question. In the hottest discussion maximum number of disputants is about 10-15. It provides that "silent majority" of BLML will make their choice on base of opinions these more active members and their own point of view. Will it what you want? Or opinion of these at most 15 person will do to you? 3. So - these 15 are discussing - and who will end this discussion? It may happens that discussion will end naturally - as it happens now. OK - but who will declare that it becomes high time for vote? And how long this voting should continue? 3 days? 5 days?:) 4. OK - members will vote. For the first 3-5 questions it may happens that great number of members will vote. But soon at most the same active member will vote - with great "silent majority". Is it what you want? Sure - not. That's why "official" scenario is more realistic - but absolutely unwanted for most of us (for you too). Then - let it continue as it is:))) Nevertheless I read your posts in other thread with great interest and very often support your point of view:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 07:13:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:13:36 +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 HAA13952 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:13:29 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.144]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 6944800 ; Sat, 05 Sep 1998 17:13:52 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980905172010.008258d0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 17:20:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Official Language Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops, I sent this to the wrong group the first time. :) Hi Richard, I believe the following passage from the Lille Conditions of Contest should clarify the situation. There is, and never should be, an "official language of bridge." Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT P.S. I presume the last clause was the basis of the rebuke. 5. Official Language English is the official language of a World Bridge Championship. During a match the players may converse only in English unless both captains (in team games) or all four players at the table (in pairs events) agree to use some other common language at their own risk. If necessary, each captain is responsible for the provision of an interpreter for translation into English. The Laws printed in English will be used by the Tournament Directors to adjudicate irregularities. No appeal due to misunderstanding in a language other than English will be heard. >Looking over the Bulletins from the WBF Championships in Lille, one short >"throw-away" sentence caught my eye. During the finals of the Woman's >Teams Championships between the Erhardt team representing Austria and >Sabine Auken's team, there was a dispute arising over which card had been >called for from dummy. As part of their decision, the director's rebuked >both teams for not conducting the match using English as the common >language. To me, it seems completely assine to suggest that two teams >consisting of native German speakers should have to conduct a match in >English. > >Question for the mailing list: Is English the "official language" of >bridge? >If so, does this mean that a club game in Russia or China should be >conducted using words like "Jack" or "Queen"? > >If English is not always the official language of bridge, does it act as >the official language in certain cases? > >Richard Willey > >Who can speak passable German, but does admit to some difficulty trying >to understand the Swiss and Austrians. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 07:37:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:37:05 +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 HAA13980 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:37:00 +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 OAA08209 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809052139.OAA08209@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Appeals at Lille Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 14:37:06 -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 Finally found the time to look at the 27 published Appeals Committe cases at Lille, with notebook in hand ready to find cases to criticize (as is my wont). I was pleased to find that almost every case was handled with great competence. With so many unusual conventions and the added complication of screens (different explanations on each side), I had to marvel at how well the TDs and ACs navigated their way through the cases. The contrast with NABC casebooks is striking. Of course No. 23 was ridiculous, no comment on that case, well-covered on BLML already. As I started on the last case, No. 27, I was bursting with admiration for the Lille ACs. Then No. 27 joined with No. 23 to slightly temper that opinion. The "mixed" artificial-assigned score, illegal IMO, was sad to see. Not surprising, I guess, with four ACBLers on the AC. Evidently I was wasting my time blasting such mixed adjustments, also used in No. 23, same AC. Perhaps L12C3 permits this sort of adjustment, but not IMO. It says "vary an assigned score," not an artificial score. Anyway, why did the AC decide that 4S would have to make 100% of the time in order to justify an assigned +620 for these non-offenders? Isn't L12C2 completely sufficient for this case? Didn't +620 represent "the most favorable result that was likely" for E-W? Was there a need to do further equity? On the other hand, if varying a score when possible is mandatory with L12C3 in effect, would not a properly varied score assign +620 and -100 to E/W, with some perceived "most favorable" probability for each, say 90/10? Adjusting with "Average Plus or +620, whichever was less" is tantamount to letting the field make the decision instead of the AC. It assigns +620 if that was less than a 60% score (probably true in this case), but not if the field was going down in 4S (as should have been true). Basing score adjustments on what the rest of the field does is an outdated practice that I thought was extinct. Maybe some knowledgeable person can explain the legal ways that L12C3 may be applied. If its purpose is "to do equity," does that mean L12C2 is not equitable if more than one favorable result is likely or more than one unfavorable result is at all probable? If the purpose is to assign scores according to probability, why not say so? Why not: 3..., an appeals committee may assign multiple scores to either or both sides, weighting each score according to its perceived probability. Does "vary" mean something in addition to this? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 08:25:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:25:45 +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 IAA14079 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:25:39 +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 PAA13104; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809052227.PAA13104@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 15:27:15 -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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > > Well said, Marvin (sorry in advance, it is only the form of address > without even slightest hint of superiority). I guess I gave the impression that I don't like to be first-named on BLML. That only applies to people who are 100% critical in commenting on anything I write. First-naming someone with whom you have no acquaintance and have never agreed with somehow strikes my ear as patronizing in tone ("You poor deluded sap, Marvin, you're wrong again"), especially coming from a young man to an old man. For everyone else, please first-name me. I like it! > I will not argue with you > but let us assume: you are right and your idea is realized. So: > 1. Once upon a time there appears a question in BLML. > Will the possible answer voted at once - or there will be organized > discussion before it? (Problems - who will organize such discussion > and will decide what question should be discussed? Let us stay that > these problems will be resolved in the same manner as now - that > means - by voluntary and free wills of BLML participants) > I guess that you will agree - discussion is helpful for future choice. > Then: > 2. There happens discussion about the question. In the hottest > discussion maximum number of disputants is about 10-15. It provides > that "silent majority" of BLML will make their choice on base of > opinions these more active members and their own point of view. Will > it what you want? Or opinion of these at most 15 person will do to you? > 3. So - these 15 are discussing - and who will end this discussion? > It may happens that discussion will end naturally - as it happens now. > OK - but who will declare that it becomes high time for vote? And how > long this voting should continue? 3 days? 5 days?:) > 4. OK - members will vote. For the first 3-5 questions it may > happens that great number of members will vote. But soon at most > the same active member will vote - with great "silent majority". > > Is it what you want? Sure - not. That's why "official" scenario > is more realistic - but absolutely unwanted for most of us (for you too). > Then - let it continue as it is:))) Okay, I give up. I was hoping someone would do the research to turn up apparent large majority opinions on BLML, as I don't have the time. If I ever get the time, I'll publish the data on rgb, not on blml. I'll not characterize it as "official" or "authoritative," merely a collection of expressed opinions. It will probably go something like this: "The ACBL is ........, which is not in accord with the Laws. This is not just my opinion, but is an opinion shared by 82% of BLML members, according to my unoffical tabulation." I hope that the WBF LC will make this discussion moot by supplying on request, in timely fashion, official, authoritative, and documented opinions about the interpretation and application of laws. The ACBL version of the Laws says appeals can be made to the ACBL LC after other remedies have been exhausted. Up to now this has been mostly futile, as such appeals are "screened" by a non-member of the LC who (usually) gives opinions on the LC's behalf. What we need is a responsive ACBL AC that aims for agreement with WBF LC interpretations, while seeking advice from the WBF LC when in doubt. Ha! > Nevertheless I read your posts in other thread with great interest > and very often support your point of view:) > > Best wishes Vitold > The same to you, Vitold, in every sense. You definitely have first-name rights! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 08:47:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:47:49 +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 IAA14110 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:46:16 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-137.access.net.il [192.116.204.137]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA28896; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:46:58 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35F1C019.78F89906@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 01:50:01 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F03CEC.68C4@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Vitold ... If Clinton is out of his mind with Monika , Yeltzin out of his "Vodka" with Cernomirdin & Duma & Rubble ... I am not astonished that some ACs or ACs' members are insane, or out of their ....(sanity ????). I hope that in a very short while , WORLD will try to come back to SANITY.......... IMO the definitions written by David are the best and would be a guideline for the TDs. Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > ....... If your qoutation is > right - AC's decision is very strange. And if we add to it cases No. 22 > and 23 - then we (I) may take a conclusion that something is wrong in > AC's positions at international level. > > Fully agreed with DWS's opinion about psyche: so in bidding as in > card-play. One point more - usually psyche during bidding is arm of > weaker players against stronger ones. Then why do the Bodies try to make > them without that arm? > > Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 6 08:52:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:52:37 +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 IAA14130 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 08:50:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-137.access.net.il [192.116.204.137]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA28670; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:45:34 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35F1BFC8.F8380B69@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 01:48:40 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" CC: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are three different cases which should be considered : 1) The player's hand dances around the bidding cards --- ...this is for sure non-ethical and I don't agree with Chris' ...opinion that it helps the player to make the bidding decision. ...The TD would ask the player to behave properly and when ...summoned second time using a PP. 2) The old/fat/sticky card attached itself to the original card ...which was pulled out with "apparent intention" - Odlin's case - ...this is easy to see the player's struggle to get his original ...bidding (may use L25A , but it is useless). 3) A card is pulled out a lot ( don't mind if 3/8 inch or 1/2 inch ...or 5/8 inch or whatever) and then changed : ...Law 25 should apply and the TD will decide at the end of the board ...if the first card was pulled with apparent intention or not , ...checking the player's hand , then using 25A or 25B . I believe that there can be only "{apparent} intention" we can't consider the player's mind - then you must kick out from the club either the cheating player or the "..[prefer not to define].." TD. Dany Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Robin Barker wrote: > > > The new orange book was in force as of yesterday, and so EBU has joined > > most of the rest of the world in that "a call is considered to have > > been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent > > intent". > > Well, how about this? It has happened to me many times, including twice > last weekend. > > Sticky, old cards in an old box. I pull out the 1S card and the 1NT card > sticks to it. At all times the face of the cards are not visible to > others. I put the bunch of cards face down on the table and shake them a > little until the 1NT card is unattached, then face the 1S bid properly and > put the 1NT card away. > > If someone wants to say my call that turn was 1NT, I quit using bidding > boxes!! > > rbo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 02:12:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:02 +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 CAA17893 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:11:54 +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 SAA09435 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F2A1D5.A17B50B6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 16:53:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille 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: > > CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > >-- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > >All the Lille appeals that appeared in the bulletins may be found at > > > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/appeals.htm > > Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and > myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and > not published, all written by Herman or me. If we can get hold of them > we would like thses to appear somewhere as well. > I have brought with me from Lille some 50 appeals, not only the unpublished ones from David and myself, but also those from Rich Colgker and Tommy Sandsmark. I will be putting them together in the next week, numbering them in a consistent manner starting from 28. Who do I send them to so as to be put in html ? They are all in Word now, using GilSans font. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 02:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:28 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17910 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:21 +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 SAA09477 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:15:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F2ABF0.FE67F2F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:36:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Official Language X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1998Sep04.101909.1189.249677@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > > If English is not always the official language of bridge, does it act as > the official language in certain cases? > No, the official language of Bridge is ... broken English. Herman. I sat on an appeal Committee where a Dutch player confessed to speaking little English, so I translated. So his French opponent, noticing a Belgian, now also insisted on speaking French, so I translated. The next appeal was between a French pair and a pair from Georgia (not Atlanta, Tbilissi !) Again I had to translate, because the Georgian's third best language was German. Joan Gerard was suitably impressed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 02:12:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:09 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17900 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:03 +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 SAA09443 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:14:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:12:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > > 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > 2C > > The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is > expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a > Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! > > The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the > Laws of the game. > > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > > I think I shall say that again. > > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the bid to "exist". 2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and therefor a brown convention. The frequency of the occurence of the bidding sequence has no relevance whatsoever. Don't we all have a bidding sequence to show a balanced 28+? And when was the last time you needed that ? You may find it strange that I speak out in favour of curbing psyching, but I don't find it. I'm just saying that psyching and systemic understandings are two clearly different things. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 02:12:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:27 +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 CAA17909 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:12:19 +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 SAA09472 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:15:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F2AA6E.E53CFA79@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:29:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809030615.XAA19191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19980903095929.007e0650@maine.rr.com> <35EF8713.36F4@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > Hi Tim:) > > You are right - AC made impossible decision. The Chairman overruled > opinion of two members. Never thought that it might happened especially > at such tournament's level. Does it mean that future AC will be able to > consist from one Chairman?:) This seems to be an American way of life. In one appeal I sat on, the final vote was 3-1. The chairman (American) had the dissenting vote, but agreed the ruling would be given as such anyway. At the end, the chairman said: "You realise this is not how we do this in America!". Indeed, why have multiple-persons AC if the chairman has the deciding vote ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 02:14:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:14:13 +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 CAA17950 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:14:07 +1000 Received: from christian (c006.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.6]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA22712 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:16:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:14:48 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD9C2.3BD96E30.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: AW: Appeals at Lille Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 18:14:47 +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: > [...] > On the other hand, if varying a score when possible is mandatory > with L12C3 in effect, would not a properly varied score assign +620 > and -100 to E/W, with some perceived "most favorable" probability > for each, say 90/10? Adjusting with "Average Plus or +620, > whichever was less" is tantamount to letting the field make the > decision instead of the AC. It assigns +620 if that was less than a > 60% score (probably true in this case), but not if the field was > going down in 4S (as should have been true). Basing score > adjustments on what the rest of the field does is an outdated > practice that I thought was extinct. I think you are completely right. You have to decide what happened at that table regardless of other results. Otherwise we fall back to the habits (mostly in team competitions) "lets look at the result at the other table and decide afterwards". > > Maybe some knowledgeable person can explain the legal ways that > L12C3 may be applied. If its purpose is "to do equity," does that > mean L12C2 is not equitable if more than one favorable result is > likely or more than one unfavorable result is at all probable? If > the purpose is to assign scores according to probability, why not > say so? Why not: > > 3..., an appeals committee may assign multiple scores to either or > both sides, weighting each score according to its perceived > probability. This is how I read it, too. Regards Christian From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 03:11:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:11:59 +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 DAA18018 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:11:54 +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 KAA05202 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809061714.KAA05202@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:12:19 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > > >-- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > > > >All the Lille appeals that appeared in the bulletins may be found at > > > > > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/wbf/lille/appeals.htm > > > > Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and > > myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and > > not published, all written by Herman or me. If we can get hold of them > > we would like thses to appear somewhere as well. > > > > I have brought with me from Lille some 50 appeals, not only the > unpublished ones from David and myself, but also those from Rich Colgker > and Tommy Sandsmark. > > I will be putting them together in the next week, numbering them in a > consistent manner starting from 28. > > Who do I send them to so as to be put in html ? > > They are all in Word now, using GilSans font. Why not send them to Yvan, who formats appeals so nicely on the International Appeals pages: > Yvan Calame Federation Suisse de Bridge ycalame@worldcom.ch Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 03:24:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:24:49 +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 DAA18039 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:24:42 +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 KAA06206; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809061726.KAA06206@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:25:54 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > > > > 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > > 2C > > > > The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is > > expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a > > Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! > > > > The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the > > Laws of the game. > > > > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > > > > I think I shall say that again. > > > > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > > > > I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I > would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. > > If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners > understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the > bid to "exist". > 2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. > > In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and > therefor a brown convention. > > The frequency of the occurence of the bidding sequence has no relevance > whatsoever. Don't we all have a bidding sequence to show a balanced > 28+? And when was the last time you needed that ? > > You may find it strange that I speak out in favour of curbing psyching, > but I don't find it. I'm just saying that psyching and systemic > understandings are two clearly different things. > This sounds like the ACBL, not Herman. My view: If I were playing with a competent-looking stranger and he opened 1NT, got doubled, and pulled my redouble, I would certainly assume a psych. This comes from my "general knowledge and experience" (L75C), not from any special partnership agreement. It therefore does not become a systemic understanding, even in later games with the same partner. Only *special* partnership agreements have to be disclosed, and there would not be anything *special* about this one. Of course if he were to psych 1NT so frequently that I expect it, then it would become *special*. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 04:16:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:16:46 +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 EAA18179 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:16:40 +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 OAA26014 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809061819.OAA12964@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:12:16 +0200) Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > David Stevenson wrote: >> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >> >> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >> 2C >> >> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! >> When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I > would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. > If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners > understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the > bid to "exist". > 2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. > In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and > therefor a brown convention. > The frequency of the occurence of the bidding sequence has no relevance > whatsoever. Don't we all have a bidding sequence to show a balanced > 28+? And when was the last time you needed that ? However, it's hard to find a systemic understanding here. Players have many systemic understandings as part of their system, which include many impossible sequences; when one occurs, that is prrof that something has been done outside of the system. This may be a deliberate violation (psyche or tactical bid), a system forget, or a discovery that the player does not hold the hand he thought he held. For example, 1NT-(2C)-2NT-(P)-3C is an impossible sequence if the 2NT was intended as natural; therefore, the 2NT bidder has AI that his bid has been misunderstood. Based on general bridge knowledge, he may assume Lebensohl and correct to 3NT. (I have deliberately made the overcall 2C to avoid questions as to whether opener could have a legitimate 3C bid with six clubs.) The psyche here is as clearly exposed as after 1C-(P)-1H-(P)-P. The agreement that opener must leave in a redouble when he has already described his hand, or respond to a forcing bid, is not a special systemic agreement to protect a psyche, but general bridge knowledge. A possible alternative I can see to the sequence being a psyche is that opener held something like KJ AQx AJ Jxxxxx and suddenly discoverd that his SK was actually the CK. I don't believe responder is allowed to make such an assumption to avoid fielding a psyche. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 04:17:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:17:50 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18189 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:17:43 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h7.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id WAA21933; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:20:31 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F36CF5.55B2@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:19:49 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman De Wael wrote: "In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and therefor a brown convention." I guess - it is neither conventions nor agreement at all. Just bridge logic. That's why it should be understandable to any average player without explanaition. My feeling - AC's decision is alike made by absolute novices so in bridge as in AC. Sorry for my words - but it was world championship... And in combination with cases 22 and 23 - I lost ground for estimation and for comparing. We have problems with AC in our country too - and I used to learn and to teach basing on european and world practise. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 04:44:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:44:19 +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 EAA18279 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:44:14 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22101 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Official Language In-Reply-To: <35F2ABF0.FE67F2F8@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Off-subject, but never mind. Herman's story of translation problems reminded me of a tale from a very early Olympiad. This was of course in the days before bidding boxes and such, and translators were provided. An official noted there was no translator at one table of an Argentinia- Australia match, and hurried over to assure the players that one would be there as soon as possible. One of the Australians told him it would not be necessary with the words, "Don't worry, mate. We all speak Hungarian." -- 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 Mon Sep 7 05:01:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 05:01:13 +1000 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18329 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 05:01:07 +1000 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id PAA12422 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 15:03:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199809061903.PAA12422@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 15:03:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980905080532.0080d7d0@cshore.com> from "Bill Segraves" at Sep 5, 98 08:05:32 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Segraves writes: > > > Now, for a bit of research: > > Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some > kind of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > Maybe this isn't the right forum (though it has bearing on the discussion at hand). Migrating threads between BLML and RGB is awkward. Any thought? In any case, with some partners I could make a fit-showing jump in diamonds and that would be my first choice. Maybe an asking bid in clubs as a second. Playing with a pickup partner, I'd try 5S. Easy to see how it might not work out. A simple diamond bid followed by a spade raise (perhaps a jump) has a lot of appeal too. I can sort of see 4S as an attempt to walk the hand but it looks kinda lame to me. Good chance for 12 winners. Of course plenty of chances for 2+ losers. I can see worrying that the hand won't handle at the 5 level but it looks to me like playing partner for perfect cards (ie all wrong). -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 07:29:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 07:29:28 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18681 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 07:29:22 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 14:32:13 -0700 Message-ID: <35F2FFEB.7020DB43@home.com> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 14:34:35 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > > > > 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > > 2C > > > > The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is > > expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a > > Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! > > > > The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the > > Laws of the game. > > > > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I > would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. > > If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners > understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the > bid to "exist". > 2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. > > In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and > therefor a brown convention. This is really nonsense. 1) ALL players assume 2C meant the 1NT opening was a psyche. This is based on their GENERAL BRIDGE-KNOWLEDGE, not a partnership agreement. 2) What happens if you "double-psyche"? Pard opens 1NT you bid Stayman 2C and pass pard's response. Everyone "knows" you psyched 2C - right? So LHO balances and you smack the opponents in their contract, because you had your bid after all and just wanted to sucker them in. Which part of this constitutes "partnership agreements"? 3) You open 1H, pard responds a forcing 1NT. You pass. Opponent's ask, and pard says pass doesn't exist since 1NT is forcing. So this pass is now an illegal partnership agreement just because everyone at the table assumes, with the same knowledge-base, that you psyched? Ridiculous! 4) The TD and AC ruling "de facto" outlaws psyches. Since however the laws specifically allow psyches, the ruling is illegal. 5) 2C might not have been a "pure" psyche. Maybe opener has a somewhat off-shape hand with a 6 cd C-suit, and is unwilling to defend. 6)TD was way off saying it was "safe" to psyche since lho would always double. First of all that doesn't make it safe (you can still go for a number in 2X doubled and secondly, it's not sure lho doubles. sometimes it's pard who's strong (it was in 1st seat)! 7) 40/60 is the typical ACBL-style lazy and probably illegal ruling, not worthy at a world championship. A result *was* obtained at the table, and an adjusted assigned score was also easy to determine, if one wanted to adjust. 8) The AC followed the lead in (again) typical acbl-style laziness and added another illegality to the ruling - imo - by giving the party "directly at fault" 20%. Nowhere in L12C1 does it allow you to give less than 40% (although at the other end you can give more than 60%). A sad story indeed. Not surprisingly, the crusader (Bobby Wolff) blessed the ruling. Slightly more surprisingly, Herman approves of it - although "not too strongly"! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 07:43:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 07:43:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18773 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 07:42:53 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFmcz-0003fe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 21:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 00:42:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >Have not given much thought to the actual ruling in this case as yet >(though I have been asked to do so by the original appeals committee, >so will be considering the views expressed on the list as part of this >and will no doubt comment later). But a question occurs to me: would >it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play >negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is >silenced is for penalties? > > we don't need an agreement - it's obvious. The only problem to my mind is that IF I COULD HAVE KNOWN at the time of the infraction (L23) etc then the director could adjust. 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 Mon Sep 7 11:39:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:39:00 +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 ESMTP id LAA19151 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFqJD-0001s0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:41:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 21:01:02 +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: <199809050511.WAA26855@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: >Fine. And so they are left with no answers. Why ask the questions? >Personally, I'm looking for the right answers. If BLML can't supply >them, I'm wasting my time. I'm not interested in discussions that >lead nowhere. We mould opinions by discussion. Polls are likely to get the opinions of people before discussion. Many of our discussions lead somewhere. However, if this is merely a forum to ask opinions from some people rather than discuss then I think BLML has lost its usefulness. In my opinion, BLML has a better range of people than it did a year ago, and the arguments are poorer and less useful. Strange. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 7 11:39:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:39:01 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19153 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFqJF-0001rx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:41:38 +0000 Message-ID: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 21:44:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980905080532.0080d7d0@cshore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Segraves wrote: >Now, for a bit of research: > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? 4S. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 7 11:38:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19142 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFqJF-0001ry-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:41:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:20:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >> >> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >> 2C >> >> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! >> >> The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the >> Laws of the game. >> >> When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. >> >> I think I shall say that again. >> >> When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. >I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I >would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. > >If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners >understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the >bid to "exist". Yeah, sure. 1D P 2H [Strong, game forcing] P P Is that a Brown sticker agreement? ... or just bridge? To state that any bid which is impossible constitutes a Brown sticker agreement is just crazy. 1NT P 2C[Stayman] P 5D Is that a Brown sticker agreement? 1NT P 4C[Gerber] P 7H Is that a Brown sticker agreement? Of course both partners *know* when a bid is made that is impossible in their system. The fact that they had some vague idea of what is going on is general bridge knowledge, not an agreement. >2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. That's general bridge knowledge: if your partner makes an impossible bid, and you would know what it would mean between two opponents unknown to you that is no evidence you have an agreement. I hate this method of making up an agreement which you and I will have, Herman, when we play our first board. If the bidding goes 1NT D R P 2C I will "know" you have psyched even if it is our first board, and to say that it is an illegal agreement even when the authority knows it isn't as an illegal way of controlling psyches disgusts me. Why don't they just publish a regulation: Regulation One. Notwithstanding the Laws of Bridge, if you psyche and your opponents object we are going to screw you because otherwise your opponents might cry. Regulation Two. We shall pretend it is an illegal agreement even though we know it isn't in case anyone notices that we are not following the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 11:38:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19143 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:38:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFqJD-0001s1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:41:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 21:16:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 In-Reply-To: <35F2AA6E.E53CFA79@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >> >> Hi all:) >> Hi Tim:) >> >> You are right - AC made impossible decision. The Chairman overruled >> opinion of two members. Never thought that it might happened especially >> at such tournament's level. Does it mean that future AC will be able to >> consist from one Chairman?:) > >This seems to be an American way of life. > >In one appeal I sat on, the final vote was 3-1. The chairman (American) >had the dissenting vote, but agreed the ruling would be given as such >anyway. > >At the end, the chairman said: "You realise this is not how we do this >in America!". > >Indeed, why have multiple-persons AC if the chairman has the deciding >vote ? > The WBF regulation is that the Chairman can only be over-ruled by the rest of the members unanimously. It was pushed through by a certain well-known person allegedly because of the large number of people who appear on WBF appeals for political reasons rather than because of ability [Herman and I were not political appointments!]. From what I heard the opinion was that this time the ability of the average appeals member was far higher [he said modestly!]. I found that few of the Chairmen made any attempt to follow this regulation. Of course the funniest for me was when Bobby Wolff had to leave one appeal early. As he left he said: "You know my opinion: over-rule me if you like." So we did! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 7 11:43:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:43:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19197 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:43:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zFqNr-0001zs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 02:45:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <35F2FFEB.7020DB43@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: I agree with everything Jan says, except: >Nowhere in L12C1 does it allow you to give less >than 40% (although at the other end you can give more than 60%). I suggest you re-read L12C1: it has changed from 1987. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 7 12:04:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:04:59 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (mail.a2000.nl [62.108.1.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19234 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:04:54 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA18910 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:07:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980907040619.00932620@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:06:19 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: References: <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:42 06-09-98 +0100, you wrote: >In article <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn>, David Burn > writes >>Have not given much thought to the actual ruling in this case as yet >>(though I have been asked to do so by the original appeals committee, >>so will be considering the views expressed on the list as part of this >>and will no doubt comment later). But a question occurs to me: would >>it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play >>negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is >>silenced is for penalties? >> well, the offending side hasnt done any damage to NO in this case, so i dont think L23 is applicable at all. Only if you could have known that PD has a hand that should defeat (or not defeat with wealth of points) a contract then L23 is appl. Not in this case at all. So i think nothing has happened and IMHO i think the leader was rather foolish in forbidding a spade return. He should forbid H instead (the shorter color. Then the contract should be made. So no redress and no l23. regards, anton >> >we don't need an agreement - it's obvious. The only problem to my mind >is that IF I COULD HAVE KNOWN at the time of the infraction (L23) etc >then the director could adjust. 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 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 12:12:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:12:39 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (mail.a2000.nl [62.108.1.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19252 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:12:32 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA19769 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:15:24 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980907041357.0092d840@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:13:57 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <35F2FFEB.7020DB43@home.com> References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:34 06-09-98 -0700, you wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > >> > Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >> > >> > 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >> > 2C >> > >> > The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >> > expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >> > Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! >> > >> > The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the >> > Laws of the game. >> > >> > When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. > > >> I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I >> would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. >> >> If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners >> understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the >> bid to "exist". >> 2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. >> >> In the view of the Committee, this constitutes a systemic agreement, and >> therefor a brown convention. > >This is really nonsense. >1) ALL players assume 2C meant the 1NT opening was a psyche. This is >based on their GENERAL BRIDGE-KNOWLEDGE, not a partnership agreement. >2) What happens if you "double-psyche"? Pard opens 1NT you bid Stayman >2C and pass pard's response. Everyone "knows" you psyched 2C - right? So >LHO balances and you smack the opponents in their contract, because you >had your bid after all and just wanted to sucker them in. Which part of >this constitutes "partnership agreements"? >3) You open 1H, pard responds a forcing 1NT. You pass. Opponent's ask, >and pard says pass doesn't exist since 1NT is forcing. So this pass is >now an illegal partnership agreement just because everyone at the table >assumes, with the same knowledge-base, that you psyched? Ridiculous! >4) The TD and AC ruling "de facto" outlaws psyches. Since however the >laws specifically allow psyches, the ruling is illegal. >5) 2C might not have been a "pure" psyche. Maybe opener has a somewhat >off-shape hand with a 6 cd C-suit, and is unwilling to defend. >6)TD was way off saying it was "safe" to psyche since lho would always >double. First of all that doesn't make it safe (you can still go for a >number in 2X doubled and secondly, it's not sure lho doubles. sometimes >it's pard who's strong (it was in 1st seat)! >7) 40/60 is the typical ACBL-style lazy and probably illegal ruling, not >worthy at a world championship. A result *was* obtained at the table, >and an adjusted assigned score was also easy to determine, if one wanted >to adjust. >8) The AC followed the lead in (again) typical acbl-style laziness and >added another illegality to the ruling - imo - by giving the party >"directly at fault" 20%. Nowhere in L12C1 does it allow you to give less >than 40% (although at the other end you can give more than 60%). > >A sad story indeed. >Not surprisingly, the crusader (Bobby Wolff) blessed the ruling. >Slightly more surprisingly, Herman approves of it - although "not too >strongly"! > I fully agree on it. BTW is in a championchip psyching really forbidden??? Even if we have to accept that only the best players are on the tables there?????? I can hardly believe this (and resent it a lot). Even in moderate level games here in holland these things are normally accepted i think and simply discovered by opponents. My blessings for ACBL-land :) regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 16:23:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:23:08 +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 QAA19633 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:23:00 +1000 Received: from christian (c012.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.12]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA01075 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:25:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:23:35 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDDA38.CE830A40.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: L25 with screens Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:23:34 +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 (in a response to my question): > Assuming it was not a mechanical error, then yes. The Laws apply > when > there is a disagreement between them and regulations, except when > L80E > applies. This means that you could have a regulation that suspends > L25B > in certain cases when a tray has gone under a screen - but this is > not > mentioned in the Lille GCoC, so does not apply. > > >2. Was my decision to tell the player that she cannot get more than > > > >average minus if she changes her call correct? > > You read out the whole of L25B, and explained it to her and gave > her > the options in it, of course? Thanks for your help, David. I was sure that she changed her mind because she told me something like that. In answer to your second question: I not only read out the complete text, but also asked them to read it themselves. The hardest task was to make them understand the consequences. Best regards Christian From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 16:40:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:40:53 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA19672 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:40:45 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:43:21 -0700 Message-ID: <35F38118.5A49F6A7@home.com> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 23:45:44 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 References: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Bill Segraves wrote: > > >Now, for a bit of research: > > > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind > >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > > 4S. WTP? Actually, this brings me to the second of my many problems with the attitude of the TD/AC in this case. Although I don't quite agree with the "WTP" statement, I would also bid only 4S, *since there is no cuebid available*! If 3S was alerted as "H + a minor" (which was probably intended), I'd have an easy 4H bid. As it is, I know from my cards that RHO has H, but pard doesn't. It is the very fact that opponents don't know (or admit to) their methods that end-plays me into chosing the slight underbid (4S). Knowing how fond Bobby Wolff is of penalising "CD" etc, I would have thought that he would appreciate this point before virtually accusing me of having a wire (my "underbidding" coinciding with pard's misbid). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 18:01:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:01:42 +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 SAA19801 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:01:30 +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 KAA10365; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:02:14 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDDA46.965E4BD0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "'michael amos'" Cc: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: L25 with screens Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:54:54 +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 michael amos [SMTP:mike@mamos.demon.co.uk] wrote: > [...]My original posting > A simple little problem > > Screen > 1C : 2D X > P ? : > > > 1C opener now asks screenmate "What's your partner's 2D bid?" > Player who has passed thinks this is a strange question because he > has > misseen the 1C bid and thought that the opening bid was 1S - he now > realises his mistake - (2D shows majors) and calls the TD (me) and > says > "Can I change my bid? > > 1 What do you tell him? > > You might think this is easy > > 2 What do you tell his LHO? > > The form of scoring is imps - it's a league format with scoring over > the > season by net imps > > 3 What do you tell the guys on the other side of the screen? > > It is possible that they may have noticed a bit of a delay and the > fact > that the three of us have visited the corridor for ten minutes > > (Actually one answer will do for all three questions :) My first > shot > was "Would you like to play the next board while I go away and > think > about this one - oh and RTFLB " :) ) > > mike > -- > michael amos Thank you for your help, mike. When I had the case and had to tell the players on the other side of the screen what happened, I stated (similar as you did) that there has been a change of call on the other side of the screen and therefor NS cannot achieve more than -3 imps. As you can imagine, I had to calculate the result of the match myself afterwards, because the board was flat. For the scoring you get only a problem with crossimps. All the other scoring methods can be dealt with according to L86. For crossimps I know there is a formula suggested in the book on movements by Hallen, but I do not know it by heart. Best regards Christian From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 19:06:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 19:06:38 +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 TAA19957 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 19:06:32 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h22.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id NAA11767; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 13:09:19 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F43D7B.45D8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 13:09:32 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 References: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F38118.5A49F6A7@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jan Kamras wrote: "Actually, this brings me to the second of my many problems with the attitude of the TD/AC in this case. Although I don't quite agree with the "WTP" statement, I would also bid only 4S, *since there is no cuebid available*! If 3S was alerted as "H + a minor" (which was probably intended), I'd have an easy 4H bid. As it is, I know from my cards that RHO has H, but pard doesn't. It is the very fact that opponents don't know (or admit to) their methods that end-plays me into chosing the slight underbid (4S). Knowing how fond Bobby Wolff is of penalising "CD" etc, I would have thought that he would appreciate this point before virtually accusing me of having a wire (my "underbidding" coinciding with pard's misbid)." Moreover - for ny opinion it is not AC's task to teach players how they should bid (play). Players have rights to make any bid/play (even mistakes) as long as they do not break the Laws. AC should test if there is infraction/breacg of the Laws. No more. That's why I guess the very question like "What should one bid with such a hand?" is not relevant. Right questions for AC were "Is it possible UI in this case? Or is it free-will-choice of the player?" Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 20:00:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:00:56 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA20123 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:00:44 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199809071000.UAA20123@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:03:35 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA181092614; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:03:34 +0200 Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from David Stevenson at "Sep 6, 98 09:44:41 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:03:34 +0200 (CES) Reply-To: thomas.dehn@okay.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 699 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > Bill Segraves wrote: > > >Now, for a bit of research: > > > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind > >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > > 4S. WTP? Definitely not 4S. Depending on systemic agreements, 4D, double (intending to run from 4Hx, showing S support with a H cuebid), 5H (splinter, but might be misinterpreted as a void)), or a forcing pass come to mind. Surely a direct 4S shows a weaker hand than passing first and then bidding 4S later. I'd probably pick 4D, showing a good D suit. There is no way I will stop at 4S, 6S is good opposite as little as AKQxxx,Qxx,Qx,Ax. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 21:39:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:39:23 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20365 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:39:17 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA11045 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:41:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Sep 98 12:40 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced To: Dburn@btinternet.com, 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: <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn> "David Burn" wrote: > > Have not given much thought to the actual ruling in this case as yet > (though I have been asked to do so by the original appeals committee, > so will be considering the views expressed on the list as part of this > and will no doubt comment later). But a question occurs to me: would > it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play > negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is > silenced is for penalties? I assume from the context that it is the partner of the "overcaller" who is silenced - not the partner of the doubler(or X is obviously not -ve). There appears to be nothing in the laws (SO regulations may vary) to prevent this and it seems analogous to a different sort of competition whereby "on a goulash all doubles are penalty" is a good substitute for otherwise more flexible methods. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 21:39:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:39:19 +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 VAA20360 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:39:13 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA11010 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:41:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Sep 98 12:40 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 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: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > Bill Segraves wrote: > > >Now, for a bit of research: > > > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some > kind > >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > > 4S. WTP? At favourable vulnerability 4D is probably better - at unfavourable/equal it is basically an instruction to opponents to find a good heart sacrifice. A direct 6S is also a possibility, particularly if you need a swing. I'd probably choose the slightly conservative 4S 3/4 of the time and punt 6S the rest. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 21:49:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:49:41 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20397 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:49:35 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA00123 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 13:52:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199809071152.NAA00123@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 13:52:26 +0000 Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199809071000.UAA20123@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: <8puytZA5Qv81Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from David Stevenson at "Sep 6, 98 09:44:41 pm" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: > > There is no way I will stop at 4S, > 6S is good opposite as little as AKQxxx,Qxx,Qx,Ax. > Maybe we should start a separate thread about the definition of Acol two-openings. But preferably not on BLML...... :) JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 22:29:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:29:04 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA20564 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:28:57 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-232.uunet.be [194.7.9.232]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16911 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:31:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F3ADBA.41B1A1BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 11:56:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809061726.KAA06206@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: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > The frequency of the occurence of the bidding sequence has no > relevance > > whatsoever. Don't we all have a bidding sequence to show a > balanced > > 28+? And when was the last time you needed that ? > > > > You may find it strange that I speak out in favour of curbing > psyching, > > but I don't find it. I'm just saying that psyching and systemic > > understandings are two clearly different things. > > > This sounds like the ACBL, not Herman. My view: If I were playing > with a competent-looking stranger and he opened 1NT, got doubled, > and pulled my redouble, I would certainly assume a psych. This > comes from my "general knowledge and experience" (L75C), not from > any special partnership agreement. If you have the special agreement that redouble is NEVER EVER pulled, then you also have the special agreement that pulling it discovers the psyche. But like I said, I was not showing any preference as to the ruling, only an explanation of it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 22:29:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:29:09 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA20569 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:29:02 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-232.uunet.be [194.7.9.232]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16923 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:31:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F3AFD6.8050221F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 12:05:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> <35F2FFEB.7020DB43@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > This is really nonsense. > 1) ALL players assume 2C meant the 1NT opening was a psyche. This is > based on their GENERAL BRIDGE-KNOWLEDGE, not a partnership agreement. But the fact that redouble is NEVER EVER pulled is a partnership agreement. So if it is pulled, that too can be called a partnership agreement. After all, partner correctly inferred the meaning. > 2) What happens if you "double-psyche"? Pard opens 1NT you bid Stayman > 2C and pass pard's response. Everyone "knows" you psyched 2C - right? So > LHO balances and you smack the opponents in their contract, because you > had your bid after all and just wanted to sucker them in. Which part of > this constitutes "partnership agreements"? Not relevant to the case at hand. The psych was correctly fielded, using a specific piece of partnership understanding to do it. > 3) You open 1H, pard responds a forcing 1NT. You pass. Opponent's ask, > and pard says pass doesn't exist since 1NT is forcing. So this pass is > now an illegal partnership agreement just because everyone at the table > assumes, with the same knowledge-base, that you psyched? Ridiculous! If you can pass, then 1NT was not really forcing, but "99% forcing". This is the kind of grey system in which I rule misinformation, no damage. > 4) The TD and AC ruling "de facto" outlaws psyches. Since however the > laws specifically allow psyches, the ruling is illegal. The AC's ruling was that this was not a psyche, but an outlawed system. That ruling is not illegal. > 5) 2C might not have been a "pure" psyche. Maybe opener has a somewhat > off-shape hand with a 6 cd C-suit, and is unwilling to defend. Then his system is not that he NEVER EVER must pull. > 6)TD was way off saying it was "safe" to psyche since lho would always > double. First of all that doesn't make it safe (you can still go for a > number in 2X doubled and secondly, it's not sure lho doubles. sometimes > it's pard who's strong (it was in 1st seat)! That is correct. > 7) 40/60 is the typical ACBL-style lazy and probably illegal ruling, not > worthy at a world championship. A result *was* obtained at the table, > and an adjusted assigned score was also easy to determine, if one wanted > to adjust. The very first call on the hand was the one that should not have happened, so how are you going to determine what would have happened without it? This is maybe the only good example of 60/40 that I heard of recently. > 8) The AC followed the lead in (again) typical acbl-style laziness and > added another illegality to the ruling - imo - by giving the party > "directly at fault" 20%. Nowhere in L12C1 does it allow you to give less > than 40% (although at the other end you can give more than 60%). > Consider the rest of the score a penalty (to which I don't agree) > A sad story indeed. > Not surprisingly, the crusader (Bobby Wolff) blessed the ruling. > Slightly more surprisingly, Herman approves of it - although "not too > strongly"! Let's not talk too much about Bobby Wolff. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 23:04:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:04:02 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA20702 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:03:53 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id JAA11410; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809052139.OAA08209@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:01:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Lille Appeal 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read this case only after I returned from Lille. As I'll explain in a subsequent message, I'd have been better off reading it while I was there! I think the analysis is important, though, so I'll go into perhaps greater length than is necessary. If I have please forgive me! I'll appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter. If I receive any private replies I'll summarize them for the list. ------------------------------------ Appeal 1 Reported by Steen Moller (Denmark) World Mixed Pairs - Round 1 Brazil v U.S.A Appeals Committee: Steen Moller (Chairman, Denmark), Jens Auken (Denmark), Jean-Paul Meyer (France). Board 13 Game All Dealer North NORTH 9 7 K 9 7 4 A Q 5 2 8 5 3 WEST EAST A K Q J 5 6 4 3 2 J 10 8 5 8 4 3 6 J 7 4 2 A K Q 9 6 SOUTH 10 8 2 A Q 6 3 K J 10 9 7 10 West North East South - Pass Pass 1D 1S Dble Rdble Pass Pass 3D 3S All Pass Facts: The double was not alerted on any side of the screen. When West was thinking before making his last call South voluntarily told him that the jump to 3D promised exactly three-card support. West made 11 tricks, -200 N/S. The TD was called to the table at the end of play by West, who claimed that he had been misled by the explanation given by South and said that he otherwise might have bid 4S but now expected East to hold two or three diamonds. TD's decision: The score stands. Law 75C. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East told the Committee that she felt that she had done enough by redoubling and then supporting to the three-level. West explained that South had shown four fingers when she opened 1D, but he did not dispute that this normally means "at least four cards". He said that when South later without being asked told that North had exactly three diamonds this was meant to inform him that N/S might be rather short in diamonds, and he concluded that East would be likely to hold two or three diamonds. Therefore he did not bid 4S. When asked why he did not make any bid over the redouble he said that he would first try to find out what East meant with the redouble. N/S told that they used normal negative doubles at the one-level, promising four cards in hearts when doubling 1. South told that she had been confused and thought that the double was a support double. She said that her failure to bid 2H clearly demonstrated that she had forgotten the system. She had wanted to be helpful when she voluntarily told West that North held exactly three cards in diamonds. The Committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation. However, this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S. The Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: TD's decision to stand. Deposit returned. The Committee warned North-South about not alerting, not correctly explaining a simple convention, and told them to be careful that any additional information volunteered is accurate. ------------------------------------ This seems all wrong to me. First, after noting that an infraction was committed under Law 75, neither the directors nor the committee refer to any Law upon which to base the decision of whether or not to adjust the score. Upon referring to the Laws it seems clear to me to adjust the score, at least for the offenders. Law 75 refers us to Law 40, where the relevant section reads "LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS C. Director's Option If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." Why does it say "may" rather than should? That can be determined by referring to Law 12, from which I have again extracted the relevant portions: "LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or: 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 favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable 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. 3. Powers of Appeals Committee Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity." This makes the context of Law 40 clear. Law 40 empowers the director to adjust the score under Law 12, and requires him to do so when damage has resulted through misinformation, if Law 12 would in fact result in a change in either side's score. What does "damage" mean in this context? It can only mean a worse score than might otherwise have been achieved. Here the damage is the missed game bonus. The requirement for damage will prevent us from adjusting the score or assessing a penalty if, for instance, the offenders provided misinformation but their opponents reached game anyway, or if the missed game was due to go down. The requirement for damage before an adjustment is a reminder of this sentence from the first paragraph of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." The concept of damage is so simple that it is not defined in the Laws, but in my experience it is widely misunderstood. Once we realize that damage has occurred we must decide whether it has occurred through the misinformation. There is no test specified for this in Law 40. As I read Law 40 it means that if the correct information would make the successful action more attractive than the misinformation did then we continue on to Law 12C2. The test cannot be any more complex than this or it would have been spelled out. In this case the requirement is clearly met. The fewer diamonds LHO has, the more room for diamonds in partner's hand, and the more losers the non-offenders will have. Note that neither the director nor the committee is asked to consider whether the non-offenders have made a mistake, but rather whether they would have been more likely to take the successful action with the correct information. If so, on to 12C2! In this case Law12C2 is clear. The offenders must receive "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" in the absence of the misinformation. Here that is -650. This must please one's sense of propriety, for it ensures that the offenders cannot profit when misinformation makes it more likely for them to achieve a favorable result. Surely that was the intent of the lawmakers, and surely it should have been. The non-offenders must receive "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Since West thought considerably before passing 3S, long enough for South to volunteer the misinformation, it would not take much to convince me as a committee member that he'd likely have gone on to game. This, though, is a judgement properly reserved for the director and the committee. This committee cannot ask whether they themselves would have gone on to game in the absence of misinformation. They have already told us, irrelevantly, that they would have bid game even with the misinformation. Rather they must ask themseleves whether a player who decided to pass with misinformation would be likely to bid game with the correct information - this could be a difficult decision. Note that nowhere was it required to show that the player who gave the misinformation could have known that it would likely be harmful. Were that test required, it would have been met - just look at the South hand! Here's the relevant Law: CHAPTER VII Proprieties LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 7 23:59:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:59:46 +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 XAA20835 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:59:38 +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 OAA13533 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:02:00 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA02688; Mon, 7 Sep 98 14:01:58 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980907140153.007dc950@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 14:01:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <35F3ADBA.41B1A1BC@village.uunet.be> References: <199809061726.KAA06206@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 07/09/98 +0200, you wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> > >> > The frequency of the occurence of the bidding sequence has no >> relevance >> > whatsoever. Don't we all have a bidding sequence to show a >> balanced >> > 28+? And when was the last time you needed that ? >> > >> > You may find it strange that I speak out in favour of curbing >> psyching, >> > but I don't find it. I'm just saying that psyching and systemic >> > understandings are two clearly different things. >> > >> This sounds like the ACBL, not Herman. My view: If I were playing >> with a competent-looking stranger and he opened 1NT, got doubled, >> and pulled my redouble, I would certainly assume a psych. This >> comes from my "general knowledge and experience" (L75C), not from >> any special partnership agreement. > >If you have the special agreement that redouble is NEVER EVER pulled, >then you also have the special agreement that pulling it discovers the >psyche. > >But like I said, I was not showing any preference as to the ruling, only >an explanation of it. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL Listening this controversial thread about legality of psyches, I think the problem turns around the meaning of the word "fielding". The (politically?) correct interpretation of regulations seems to be that a psyche is authorized only when it is warranted that partner will never be able to understand it whatever may be the following bids. When there happens to be one situation (for example: following 1NT psyche opening, lho happens to double, partner happens to redouble, rho happens to pass) in which psycher is able to make a bid which exposes his psyche (because it cannot have any other rational meaning), even absent any partnership agreement, even with an occasionnal partner, psyche is deemed to be illegal and some implicit agreement presented. Thus, banning fielding means psyches are only legal when it is impossible to recover from them. Is this the correct interpretation? Is it worldwide agreed? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 01:58:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 01:58:20 +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 BAA23455 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 01:58:13 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n38.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.56]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA19179 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980907115711.007f6d90@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 11:57:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980907140153.007dc950@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <35F3ADBA.41B1A1BC@village.uunet.be> <199809061726.KAA06206@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:01 PM 9/7/98 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Thus, banning fielding means psyches are only legal when it is impossible >to recover from them. Is this the correct interpretation? Is it worldwide >agreed? Not worldwide if you consider my home as part of the world. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 02:35:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 02:35:13 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23750 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 02:35:07 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA20525 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA07880 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809071638.MAA07880@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > The opponents are entitled to know > our agreements, and if they ask about a bid about which we have no > agreement, as in the present case, they are entitled to the correct > response that we have no agreement. There is a difference between "no agreement" because we have never discussed a particular sequence, and "no agreement" because the sequence violates some other agreement and so is never expected to occur. The opponents are entitled to know, if they ask, which situation applies. I hope we all agree on this. > But it seems doubtful to me that anyone > should have an obligation to volunteer such information every time partner > apparently wanders off the reservation. This would be a matter of the SO's alert regulations. In general, I expect most jurisdictions would require an alert if the weirdness of a sequence would not be apparent to the bidders' opponents. For example, 1H-2C(normal, supposed to be forcing)-P(!) probably doesn't require an alert because the strangeness of the pass is equally obvious to everyone at the table. But if the auction is 1H-1NT(supposed to be completely forcing)-P(!), many SO's might well require an alert. It is only the non-standard agreement about 1NT that makes the pass weird, and (depending on how 1NT is alerted, announced, or explained in that jurisdiction) the implications might not be obvious to the opponents. I think the auction 1NT-3NT(supposed to be natural signoff)-any bid(!) is in the first category ("self-alerting"), but I wouldn't be astonished to find an SO that disagrees. I think the sequence 1NT-x-xx-P-2C is also self-alerting, and I'm rather surprised to find that a WBF AC disagrees. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 03:36:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:36:01 +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 ESMTP id DAA23885 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:35:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zG5FH-0003RC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:38:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:30:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980907140153.007dc950@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Listening this controversial thread about legality of psyches, I think the >problem turns around the meaning of the word "fielding". > The (politically?) correct interpretation of regulations seems to be that >a psyche is authorized only when it is warranted that partner will never be >able to understand it whatever may be the following bids. No. That is not what the Law says, and it is not what any regulation says that I have seen, and such a regulation would probably be illegal. It may not be covered by a partnership agreement. > When there >happens to be one situation (for example: following 1NT psyche opening, lho >happens to double, partner happens to redouble, rho happens to pass) in >which psycher is able to make a bid which exposes his psyche (because it >cannot have any other rational meaning), even absent any partnership >agreement, even with an occasionnal partner, psyche is deemed to be illegal >and some implicit agreement presented. This means, of course, that it is completely illegal to psyche, because there is no psyche you can make where there is not a continuation that is impossible in the partnership methods. This is the interpretation that logically cannot be correct. Furthermore, the WBF LC said [I believe] that they did not support this. Either psyches are legal, or they are not. Producing some crazy regulation that in effect bans them all seems the wrong way to go. > Thus, banning fielding means psyches are only legal when it is impossible >to recover from them. Is this the correct interpretation? Is it worldwide >agreed? I believe it to be [a] an incorrect interpretation of the Law [b] a view held by a minority of law-enforcers [c] bad for the game of bridge [d] unsupported by the relevant authorities [e] probably illegal -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 03:35:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:35:52 +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 ESMTP id DAA23881 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:35:44 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zG5FD-0003Qq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:38:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:39:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >This makes the context of Law 40 clear. Law 40 empowers the director to >adjust the score under Law 12, and requires him to do so when damage has >resulted through misinformation, if Law 12 would in fact result in a change >in either side's score. > >What does "damage" mean in this context? It can only mean a worse score >than might otherwise have been achieved. Here the damage is the missed game >bonus. The requirement for damage will prevent us from adjusting the score >or assessing a penalty if, for instance, the offenders provided >misinformation but their opponents reached game anyway, or if the missed >game was due to go down. The requirement for damage before an adjustment is >a reminder of this sentence from the first paragraph of the Laws: > >"The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but >rather as redress for damage." I agree with Adam completely in his statement of the Law and his interpretation. I believe that the AC did not adjust because in their bridge judgement there was no damage resulting from the misinformation: >The Committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation. >However, this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S. The >Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway. In effect they are saying that with correct information the AC believes the bidding would have been the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 04:39:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:39:01 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24060 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:38:54 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA05841 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980907144259.006df358@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 14:42:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <005b01bdd888$c67eea00$d83563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:50 AM 9/5/98 +0100, David wrote: >But a question occurs to me: would >it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play >negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is >silenced is for penalties? On what basis might it possibly not be legal? One might run into trouble in the ACBL, which has a "regulation" on the books forbidding agreements about auctions after opponents' irregularities, but we've been over that ground before (IIRC, most recently in the context of insufficient bids): The regulation is meaningless unless "agreements" is understood to mean conventional agreements; otherwise there are situations in which your opponents' infraction may put you in a position where there's no way for you to continue the auction legally. 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 Sep 8 04:50:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:50:46 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24095 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:50:41 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:53:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35F42C3B.C73C364C@home.com> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 11:55:55 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Controlled psyches References: <7Ifj1dAjWu71EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> <35F2FFEB.7020DB43@home.com> <35F3AFD6.8050221F@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > > > > > This is really nonsense. > > 1) ALL players assume 2C meant the 1NT opening was a psyche. This is > > based on their GENERAL BRIDGE-KNOWLEDGE, not a partnership agreement. > > But the fact that redouble is NEVER EVER pulled is a partnership > agreement. So if it is pulled, that too can be called a partnership > agreement. After all, partner correctly inferred the meaning. Not true! Pard thought opener had *long* clubs, not short. How would you rule if both players at that stage told opponent's "I/pard psyched. I/she have/has a weak hand with long clubs", opponent's acted based on that and got a bad result when it turned out opener had *short* clubs? The fact of the matter is, that only after the redouble of 2CX did it become clear what opener likely had, and at that time both players correctly informed their respective screen-mates of what opener was likely up to. They psyched, but volunteered the actual hand as soon as known and while oppo's still had time to do the right thing. I'd go so far as to say that I believe N/S even acted fully in compliance with the most fanatic interpretation of "Active Ethics". If the opponents still refuse to capitalize and get the top you have offered them - TOUGH! It was a world championship after all, not a local club game. "All" serious players assume *without specific agreement* that a balanced opener either pena-doubles or gives his redoubling pard the chance to do so, before "escaping". The players at the table never said "RD is never pulled". They said "2C doesn't exist". It seems absolutely normal that they haven't discussed this. Your argument abt how something becomes a convention is way off. In fact, you might have slightly more of a case if the agreement on XX was "it is *almost* never pulled". Then you might have some implicit agreements on under which circumstances it might be. Anyway, this pair never said they have this or that agreement abt the XX. When asked abt 2C they explained "it doesn't exist", meaning it is completely undiscussed, antisystemic, etc. You can not force a partnership to have agreements for "non-existing" bids. What if my pard opens 1S and I respond 4D* which is a splinter. Even my favourite pard since 25 years and I have never specifically agreed that we never pass a splinter, yet I would expect this to be selfunderstood *because of bridge-logic and general logic*. If my pard now decides to pass 4D, and if I assume his 1S bid was not kosher, do you consider we now suddenly have a "brown sticker convention"? And if I actually am colour-blind, and saw pard's bid as 4S, not 4D, have we commited the horrible crime of psyching a psyche-controlling but non-existant brown sticker convention??? > The psych was correctly fielded, > using a specific piece of partnership understanding to do it. No - just common sense (which is not yet outlawed, I believe). > If you can pass, then 1NT was not really forcing, but "99% forcing". > This is the kind of grey system in which I rule misinformation, no > damage. I repeat, 1NT was 100% forcing and I *cannot* pass, but I did anyway. Nothing grey abt the system, only your reasoning. > > 4) The TD and AC ruling "de facto" outlaws psyches. Since however > > the laws specifically allow psyches, the ruling is illegal. > > The AC's ruling was that this was not a psyche, but an outlawed > system.That ruling is not illegal. Semantics. It's like if you prohibit smoking in all public and private places, but still claim you don't prohibit smoking in general. Hence the "de facto" in my comment. I will happily leave the last word on this to Herman, who I admire for never giving in even when he alone advocates a particular opinion. Anything more I'd say would be repetitive. I'd just like to point out that when his response goes unanswered by me, it doesn't constitute an agreement (brown sticker or otherwise:-)) on my part! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 04:59:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:59:29 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24119 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:59:24 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:02:16 -0700 Message-ID: <35F42E47.6887C6E8@home.com> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 12:04:39 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 References: <199809071000.UAA20123@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > According to David Stevenson: > > Bill Segraves wrote: > > > > >Now, for a bit of research: > > > > > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind > > >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > > > > 4S. WTP? > > Definitely not 4S. Depending on systemic > agreements, 4D, double (intending to run from 4Hx, > showing S support with a H cuebid), 5H (splinter, but might be > misinterpreted as a void)), > or a forcing > pass come to mind. Surely a direct 4S shows a > weaker hand than passing first and then > bidding 4S later. On reflection I agree and find a double followed by cheapest spade-bid probably best. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 05:14:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:14:25 +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 FAA24153 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:14:19 +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 PAA24156 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809071917.PAA26973@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980907144259.006df358@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 07 Sep 1998 14:42:59 -0400) Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 05:50 AM 9/5/98 +0100, David wrote: >> But a question occurs to me: would >> it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play >> negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is >> silenced is for penalties? > On what basis might it possibly not be legal? > One might run into trouble in the ACBL, which has a "regulation" on the > books forbidding agreements about auctions after opponents' irregularities, > but we've been over that ground before (IIRC, most recently in the context > of insufficient bids): The regulation is meaningless unless "agreements" > is understood to mean conventional agreements; otherwise there are > situations in which your opponents' infraction may put you in a position > where there's no way for you to continue the auction legally. For example, there's a book on doubles which says that a double of an insufficient bid may not be taken out. If my partner and I agree to play the defensive methods given in that book, then we have an agreement. The other way around is more interesting, though. If you play negative doubles through 3S, may you agree that the double after 1S-(1H)-X is negative, since this agreement does not depend on the insufficiency of the overcall? -- 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 Sep 8 05:52:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:52:00 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA24236 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:51:55 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 12:54:47 -0700 Message-ID: <35F43A96.6AE1F074@home.com> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 12:57:10 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: an analysis with which I agree almost completely. I studied all published Lille-appeals the day after, and no. 1 was one of only two where I disagreed with the otherwise excellent AC decisions in the early stages. Had South said nothing, I believe it is *at least* "somewhat probable", and maybe even "likely", that an expert West would have raised to 4S. West might have reasoned along these lines: "Pard XX before voluntarily supporting my suit at the 3-level means he has also good defence (length) against North's implied suits. That leaves him short in Diamonds. North's *jump* to 3D reinforces this, making a singleton D quite likely. When pard can go to 3S with such lousy support, 4S must at least have some play." Did the MI affect such a reasoning? I sure think so. It is now almost impossible for pard to have less than 2 cd diamonds (S doesn't have 6 and N only 3), thus we immediately have one more loser. I thus consider L12 should apply. I'd definitely consider both -200 and -650 to N/S as "probable" absent the MI, so would adjust their score to -650. I would be hesitant abt "likely" though. In the end I might agree that E/W gets +200 only, but I wouldn't considering it wrong to award +650. Would L12C3 these days allow us to give E/W 50/50 of the two, i.e. +425? If so, that's what I'd do. Were you West, Adam? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 06:13:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:13:35 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24292 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:13:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA22841 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA08025 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:16:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809072016.QAA08025@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25 with screens X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Christian Bernscherer [after a L25B change of call] > For the scoring you get only a problem with crossimps. All the other > scoring methods can be dealt with according to L86. For crossimps I > know there is a formula suggested in the book on movements by Hallen, > but I do not know it by heart. Why is there a problem? The NOS has a result, so just cross-imp against that. At the end, change the OS result to -3 and re-add their IMPs. (Of course there's no problem at all if the natural result of the board leaves the OS with less than -3.) What am I missing? (I haven't read Hallen's book.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 06:19:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:19:04 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24326 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:18:58 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id QAA13792; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:21:39 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: >I agree with Adam completely in his statement of the Law and his >interpretation. How I love to hear people say that - thank you! >I believe that the AC did not adjust because in their >bridge judgement there was no damage resulting from the misinformation: I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're saying is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement correctly? >Steen Moller wrote: >>The Committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation. >>However, this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S. The >>Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway. > >In effect they are saying that with correct information the AC >believes the bidding would have been the same. That may be what they intended, but that's surely not what they said. Are we to believe that the AC seriously thought that -200 was "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the offenders in the absence of the misinformation? So far as I can tell from the write-up they did not even consider applying Law 12C2. I am trying to ascertain why they did not, and whether there's any basis in Law for their failure to do so. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 06:29:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:29:27 +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 GAA24358 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 06:29:21 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA23405 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA08040 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:32:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809072032.QAA08040@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > In this case Law12C2 is clear. The offenders must receive "the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable" in the absence of the > misinformation. Here that is -650. This is a good example of something we were discussing a week or two ago. I believe the AC ruled, in effect, that even without the MI, it was not "at all likely" that _this_ pair would bid 4S. Technically (if the above was indeed their belief), I believe they should have assigned an adjusted score of 3S+2, but letting the table result stand has the same effect. > Since West thought considerably before > passing 3S, long enough for South to volunteer the misinformation, it would > not take much to convince me as a committee member that he'd likely have > gone on to game. This, though, is a judgement properly reserved for the > director and the committee. Yes, it's quite possible the AC got the ruling wrong, but the last sentence says it all. Still, it's hard to believe the chance of EW bidding game is so small that one cannot even adjust for the OS. I'd be more comfortable if the writeup were clearer. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 08:28:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:28:55 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24711 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:28:49 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA07873 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980907183256.006d4ca4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 18:32:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal case 23 In-Reply-To: References: <35F2AA6E.E53CFA79@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:16 PM 9/6/98 +0100, David wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >>> You are right - AC made impossible decision. The Chairman overruled >>> opinion of two members. Never thought that it might happened especially >>> at such tournament's level. Does it mean that future AC will be able to >>> consist from one Chairman?:) >> >>This seems to be an American way of life. >> >>In one appeal I sat on, the final vote was 3-1. The chairman (American) >>had the dissenting vote, but agreed the ruling would be given as such >>anyway. >> >>At the end, the chairman said: "You realise this is not how we do this >>in America!". >> >>Indeed, why have multiple-persons AC if the chairman has the deciding >>vote ? >> > The WBF regulation is that the Chairman can only be over-ruled by the >rest of the members unanimously. It was pushed through by a certain >well-known person allegedly because of the large number of people who >appear on WBF appeals for political reasons rather than because of >ability [Herman and I were not political appointments!]. > > From what I heard the opinion was that this time the ability of the >average appeals member was far higher [he said modestly!]. I found that >few of the Chairmen made any attempt to follow this regulation. > > Of course the funniest for me was when Bobby Wolff had to leave one >appeal early. As he left he said: "You know my opinion: over-rule me if >you like." So we did! Whatever the rules, my basic feeling still echoes Vitold's -- "Never thought that it might happen[,] especially at such [a] level." Superficially the regulation sounds silly, but the reasons for adopting it derived from factors I know not of, and were undoubtedly good ones. Nevertheless... What the regulation means is that, in a normal committee situation (i.e. all hands present) a Chairman can impose a 2-3 decision, overruling the majority. The purpose, of course, must be to protect the contestants from an inappropriate decision made by three members who are less than competent to serve, be they political appointees, only available warm bodies, or whatever. David's wry comment notwithstanding, of course all of the Chairmen followed this regulation, which permits them to overrule or ignore the opinion of their majority, but certainly doesn't require them to do so. If the intent was to protect the contestants from less than competent committee members, then surely the intent was for the Chairman to take this action only when willing to make the de facto, if unofficial, decision that the members in the majority were less than competent. I have heard no suggestion that the dissenters in Case #23 were less than competent. (As a personal aside, I know one of them well, and I wouldn't have believed such a suggestion had there been one.) Whatever the WBF's reasons for writing the regulation as they did, surely they intended that a Chairman only "pull it out" under rare and unusual circumstances. Its use in Case #23 seems totally unjustifiable. Moreover, in Case #23, the circumstances were exacerbated by the fact that two members had excused themselves, leaving the Chairman a minority of one. This means that the legality behind reporting out the Chairman's minority opinion was based solely on a loophole. Considering only the members who were present for the entire deliberation, this Chairman *was* opposed by unanimous dissent. That he may not technically have violated the regulation just means that there was indeed a loophole in it; his actions were contrary to the obvious intent of the regulation, and were reprehensible even if legal. I wouldn't expect anyone who acted in this manner to be invited to chair any such committees in the future, nor would I expect. given the egregiousness of this particular opinion, the responsible party to be invited to serve 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 Tue Sep 8 08:31:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:31:40 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24734 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:31:35 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id SAA25713; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F43A96.6AE1F074@home.com> References: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:31:08 -0400 To: Jan Kamras From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:57 PM -0400 9/7/98, Jan Kamras wrote: >Were you West, Adam? No, but there was another appeal later in the tournament... I thought we'd all be better off if I started out with one where I was not involved! Before looking at the other it would be useful to read Jeff Rubens' editorial in the September '98 Bridge World. He makes some excellent points, though he seems to do so in relation to some abstract, idealized set of laws, since he does not reference the existing Laws. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 14:40:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:40:38 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA25522 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:40:33 +1000 Received: from maths-pc9.maths.utas.edu.au (maths-pc9.maths.utas.edu.au [131.217.60.72]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA08902 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:43:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980908144618.007b7e50@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 14:46:18 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 20:14:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:14:57 +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 ESMTP id UAA26203 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:14:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGKqF-0006EC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:17:45 +0000 Message-ID: <9f+SgxB8LJ91EwzZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:14:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 3:57 PM -0400 9/7/98, Jan Kamras wrote: > >>Were you West, Adam? > >No, but there was another appeal later in the tournament... ... and some of us have been waiting for it! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 20:14:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:14:54 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA26198 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:14:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGKqB-0006Da-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:17:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 03:28:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 10:39 AM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: > >>I agree with Adam completely in his statement of the Law and his >>interpretation. > >How I love to hear people say that - thank you! > >>I believe that the AC did not adjust because in their >>bridge judgement there was no damage resulting from the misinformation: > >I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're saying >is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage >resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement >correctly? No. Once the AC decides there is no damage consequent on the irregularity it does not matter whether the pair has damaged itself or whether there was no damage. >>Steen Moller wrote: >>>The Committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation. >>>However, this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S. The >>>Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway. When they say that "this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S" then they are saying that the failure to bid 4S, whether you consider it damage or not, is not consequent on an irregularity. >>In effect they are saying that with correct information the AC >>believes the bidding would have been the same. > >That may be what they intended, but that's surely not what they said. Are >we to believe that the AC seriously thought that -200 was "the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the offenders in the >absence of the misinformation? So far as I can tell from the write-up they >did not even consider applying Law 12C2. I am trying to ascertain why they >did not, and whether there's any basis in Law for their failure to do so. Now I believe you are straying in your understanding of the Law. L12C2 tells you _how_ to adjust if you are required to adjust by another Law. L40C says "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." To award the adjusted score you then move to L12C2. In my view the AC has said that the side was not damaged by the failure to explain, thus there was no reason to invoke L12C2. --- ... --- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Wildavsky >> In this case Law12C2 is clear. The offenders must receive "the most >> unfavorable result that was at all probable" in the absence of the >> misinformation. Here that is -650. >This is a good example of something we were discussing a week or >two ago. I believe the AC ruled, in effect, that even without >the MI, it was not "at all likely" that _this_ pair would bid 4S. > >Technically (if the above was indeed their belief), I believe they >should have assigned an adjusted score of 3S+2, but letting the table >result stand has the same effect. No, I think their description makes it clear that they did not apply L12C2. It is a peculiarly American idea to have damage and no score you can adjust to. I still believe it to be a flawed ACBL interpretation, but I do not believe that an AC with a Danish Chairman would consider this interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 22:03:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:03:49 +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 WAA26450 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:03:43 +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 IAA15320 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980908080756.006e03b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 08:07:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: References: <35F2A650.E84F8AA6@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:20 PM 9/6/98 +0100, David wrote: >Why don't >they just publish a regulation: > > Regulation One. Notwithstanding the Laws of Bridge, if you psyche >and your opponents object we are going to screw you because otherwise >your opponents might cry. > > Regulation Two. We shall pretend it is an illegal agreement even >though we know it isn't in case anyone notices that we are not following >the Laws. Or adopt the ACBL's wording, which is somewhat different, but comes down to the same bottom line? 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 Sep 8 22:15:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:15:49 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26524 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:15:42 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id IAA02845; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808262203.SAA02594@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:18:14 -0400 To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:03 PM -0400 8/26/98, Steve Willner wrote: >> 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. Hold on a sec! What do you mean when you say >"had the irregularity not occurred" >applies to the NOS and not the OS ? As I read the law it applies to both sides - I can't imagine what it would mean otherwise. For reference, here's the text: --- 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. --- AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 8 23:38:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:38:20 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26807 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:38:13 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id JAA12590; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:40:44 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:28 PM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>At 10:39 AM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: >>>I believe that the AC did not adjust because in their >>>bridge judgement there was no damage resulting from the misinformation: >> >>I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're saying >>is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage >>resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement >>correctly? > > No. Once the AC decides there is no damage consequent on the >irregularity it does not matter whether the pair has damaged itself or >whether there was no damage. I'm understanding you less well, now, not more, so I'm going to try and focus on what you mean here. First, here's the relevant part of Law 40 again: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." I think you (and most of us, thanks to Edgar) translate the word "through" here to the concept "consequent to" or "as a consequence of". Am I correct? When I interpret this I do so in stages. First I look for damage - if there's no damage, there can be no damage consequent to anything. When I look for damage I find it, namely the difference between +200 the NO side scored and the +650 they might have scored. Are we agreed so far? Only once I've found damage do I look to see what might have led to the damage. Whatever the circumstances one could say that West's Pass led to the damage, since he'd have scored better had he bid. That is not the intent of the law, or we would never adjust. One could say that West's Pass, -which was a mistake given the information he had-, led to the damage. I disagree with this approach, and am willing to argue against it, but only if that's what you (or anyone reading this!) are asserting. Am I close, or did you mean something else? AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 00:11:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:11:23 +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 AAA27312 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:11:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-86.uunet.be [194.7.9.86]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00268 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:28:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F5055A.B06AD054@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 12:22:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're saying > is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage > resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement > correctly? > English semantics professor wanted : When I hear the word "damage" I automatically think of an infraction resulting in a bad score. Adam seems to be using the word damage as synonymous to "bad score". If he is right, then his sentence is correct. If I am right, my sentence was correct. Anyway, I am trying to say that the AC and TD decided the bad score was not caused by the infraction. I think that is what we mean by the short sentence : "misinformation, no damage". Agreed ? (on wording ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 00:11:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:11:27 +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 AAA27344 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:11:05 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-86.uunet.be [194.7.9.86]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00264 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:28:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F5035E.4F5832C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 12:13:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Controlled psyches X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809061726.KAA06206@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19980907140153.007dc950@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > Listening this controversial thread about legality of psyches, I think the > problem turns around the meaning of the word "fielding". > The (politically?) correct interpretation of regulations seems to be that > a psyche is authorized only when it is warranted that partner will never be > able to understand it whatever may be the following bids. When there > happens to be one situation (for example: following 1NT psyche opening, lho > happens to double, partner happens to redouble, rho happens to pass) in > which psycher is able to make a bid which exposes his psyche (because it > cannot have any other rational meaning), even absent any partnership > agreement, even with an occasionnal partner, psyche is deemed to be illegal > and some implicit agreement presented. > Thus, banning fielding means psyches are only legal when it is impossible > to recover from them. Is this the correct interpretation? Is it worldwide > agreed? > This is the best argument against the disputed ruling I have yet read. To sum up : - the action of bidding, with the agreement that you should NEVER EVER bid, together shows that bidding exposes the psyche systematically. - thus this should be alerted, explained, subject to misinformation and so on - however, the unique set of calls in between, which enable the psyche to be discovered, do not make the psyche "always" discoverable. - this should not make the special (psychic) meaning of the 1NT opening "systemic" - and thus not a brown convention. - and the ruling incorrect -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 00:13:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:13:08 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28014 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:12:51 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-220.uunet.be [194.7.13.220]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26420 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:51:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 16:49:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I read this case only after I returned from Lille. As I'll explain in a > subsequent message, I'd have been better off reading it while I was there! > I think the analysis is important, though, so I'll go into perhaps greater > length than is necessary. If I have please forgive me! > I know where this is leading, and if the long post has deterred some readers, I urge them to try again. It is interesting, and it may lead to a deeper understanding of differences in opinion on either side of the little pond we call the Atlantic. [large snip] > > The concept of damage is so simple that it is not defined in the Laws, but > in my experience it is widely misunderstood. > > Once we realize that damage has occurred we must decide whether it has > occurred through the misinformation. There is no test specified for this in > Law 40. As I read Law 40 it means that if the correct information would > make the successful action more attractive than the misinformation did then > we continue on to Law 12C2. The test cannot be any more complex than this > or it would have been spelled out. > > In this case the requirement is clearly met. The fewer diamonds LHO has, > the more room for diamonds in partner's hand, and the more losers the > non-offenders will have. Note that neither the director nor the committee > is asked to consider whether the non-offenders have made a mistake, but > rather whether they would have been more likely to take the successful > action with the correct information. If so, on to 12C2! > This is the main point of Mr Wildavsky's statement (that was just once for politeness, I will henceforth call you Adam, if you don't mind, far less chance of misspelling). He has another case to present to you, just like this, and the main point of both is this : Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that although the correct information might lead the player more easily to the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line should also have been found. I am equally interested in the opinions of the readers in such cases. [another large snip] It must be said, Adam, that whereas you are correct in quoting L12, the TD and AC in both cases you appear interested in, was that the misinformation did not cause the damage and that no AS was therefor necessary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:08:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:08:51 +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 ESMTP id BAA29383 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:08:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGPQS-0000bg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:11:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:16:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980908080756.006e03b8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:20 PM 9/6/98 +0100, David wrote: > >>Why don't >>they just publish a regulation: >> >> Regulation One. Notwithstanding the Laws of Bridge, if you psyche >>and your opponents object we are going to screw you because otherwise >>your opponents might cry. >> >> Regulation Two. We shall pretend it is an illegal agreement even >>though we know it isn't in case anyone notices that we are not following >>the Laws. > >Or adopt the ACBL's wording, which is somewhat different, but comes down to >the same bottom line? Are you sure, Eric? I thought the problem is not that the ACBL's wording says this, but that some people's interpretation of it does. There is IMO an enormous difference: in the latter case our discussions, and discussions caused by us, and other people's discussions after Lille may change some of the interpretations: if it is the former case it needs a regulation change. What's it say? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:08:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:08:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29384 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:08:36 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGPQS-0000bf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:11:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:13:11 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 6:03 PM -0400 8/26/98, Steve Willner wrote: >>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. >Hold on a sec! > >What do you mean when you say > >>"had the irregularity not occurred" >>applies to the NOS and not the OS > >? > >As I read the law it applies to both sides - I can't imagine what it would >mean otherwise. For reference, here's the text: > >--- > >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. > >--- There are two decisions for the TD/AC. [1] >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 [2] >When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result >actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for an offending > side, the most unfavourable result that was >at all probable. Granted they normally come to the same result, but not always, and then we have a "split" score. The words "had the irregularity not occurred" do not appear in [2] and occasionally this becomes relevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:26:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:26:09 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29501 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:26:03 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id LAA27930; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:28:26 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM -0400 9/7/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >This is the main point of Mr Wildavsky's statement (that was just once >for politeness, I will henceforth call you Adam, if you don't mind, far >less chance of misspelling). I don't mind, in fact I prefer it. I must tell you that Bridge Today recently misspelled my name, and that the fault was largely mine since I had proofread the article in question! >Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >the successful line, in the absence of the misinformation, this line >should also have been found. This seams clear to me, both as a matter of law and a matter of justice. The offenders cannot be allowed to profit from the misinformation. There is no automatic penalty for misinformation. The prescribed penalty is that if the misinformation made a favorable result more likely then that favorable result will be taken away from the offenders. Not to assess such a penalty, in my opinion, makes a mockery both of the Laws and of justice. Let's look at it another way, from the point of view of the non-offenders, as Jeff Rubens does in this month's Bridge World. West's decision on this hand, though perhaps ill advised, was made considering only the universe of hands where North held three diamonds. We cannot know for sure what West would have bid had he considered instead the universe of hands where North held four diamonds (or so), but (a) West could only have been more likely to make the correct decision, not less. (b) West was not given the opportunity at the table to demonstrate the action he'd have taken with the correct information. He deserved such an opportunity. (c) In any case we cannot allow the offenders the benefit of the doubt here. Here's a third way to look at it. Must a pair play perfectly, or even well, to receive redress? I have suggested that the only sensible way to interpret Law 40 is that in order to adjust the score, the misinformation must have made the successful action relatively less attractive compared to the successful action than the correct information would have. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:27:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:27:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29518 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:27:26 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA05782 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08507 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:30:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809081530.LAA08507@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > >Technically (if the above was indeed their belief), I believe they > >should have assigned an adjusted score of 3S+2, but letting the table > >result stand has the same effect. Being concise seems to do more harm than good. I'll try to do better. > From: David Stevenson > No, I think their description makes it clear that they did not apply > L12C2. Yes, it's completely clear that the AC did not apply L12C2. The question is whether they ought to have done so even if it led to the same score as the table result. Obviously this is a technical question of laws interpretation, not of practical consequence. The only reason it's of interest is that it clarifies exactly how a decision was reached. We all agree that the AC found that MI was given, and the MI certainly makes the winning action less attractive. In my view, that is enough to deem damage and invoke L12C2. Once we are at L12C2, we try to figure out "likely" and "at all probable" results absent the MI. I believe what the AC said is that even absent the MI, this pair wasn't going to bid game (failing the "at all probable" test and _a fortiori_ the "likely" test). Thus the adjusted score for both sides is the same as the table result. Another way of reaching the same result is to say that there was no damage. This is what the committee did, and obviously it makes no difference to the score, but I think it reflects slightly fuzzy thinking. But if everyone else is happy with this approach, I don't object too strongly. Of course one might well disagree with the bridge judgment of the committee, but that's a different issue. > It is a peculiarly American idea to have damage and no score you > can adjust to. I still believe it to be a flawed ACBL interpretation, > but I do not believe that an AC with a Danish Chairman would consider > this interpretation. I don't know anyone who has advocated this "peculiarly American idea." If you are referring to use of avg+/avg- in lieu of an assigned score, you won't find me defending that! In case at hand, there is perfectly good score (in view of the AC's findings) that one can adjust to. It just happens to be the same as the table result. I don't see that the interpretation is flawed. It has the advantage that it gives a specific standard ("at all probable") by which to judge whether or not an adjustment is warranted. In the committee's (and David's?) approach, I don't see any such standard by which to judge whether or not damage resulted without referring to the language of L12C2. But as I say, this is a rather technical issue not likely to be of great practical importance. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:36:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:36:41 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29558 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:36:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA05383 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08522 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:39:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809081539.LAA08522@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that > although the correct information might lead the player more easily to > the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line > should also have been found. I don't see how the above question is appropriate under any reading of the Laws. The main question is not what a player did given the MI; it is what he would have done given correct information. Thus, _given correct information_, is it "probable" or "at all likely" that the successful line would have been found? Under the Kaplan doctrine, widely but not universally accepted, there is a secondary question: was the actual line, _given the MI_, an "egregious error" or "wild or gambling?" The question of whether it was an ordinary bridge mistake, as Herman seems to be asking, should not be a consideration. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:43:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:43:57 +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 BAA29585 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:43:50 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27281 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:41:51 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809081541.KAA27281@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:41:50 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the > > players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their > experience > > level they clearly should have known better. To give a PP for MI > is > > obviously inappropriate--but to give a PP to an experienced > player who > > knows his partner's explanation is incorrect but fails to correct > it before > > the opening lead is not. > > There are other laws for dealing with MI, whether corrected at the > right time, the wrong time, or never. But I'm arguing that we're not penalizing for the MI, per se, but rather because we judge that the infraction of not notifying the opponents was one that never should have occurred except due to carelessness on the part of the player. This carelessness has inconvenienced other players [director calls almost always make the other players uncomfortable, and when the TD is a playing director it's even worse], and L90 allows us to give PP's for doing that. Again, I only think such PP's are justified when it is clear the player should have known better. > > There should be no PP's for > > giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an > LA], but > > an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" > before his > > opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. > > That UI would be handled by L16, a stern lecture, banishment, C&E > procedures, or whatever. It's not grounds for a PP. Are you really saying that it is preferable to banish a player or initiate C&E proceedings than to give a PP? > Well, we on the other side point to the Scope of the Laws, which > says "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." While the Two objections: 1) It says "primarily", admitting that the Laws may allow the punishment of irregularities as a secondary function. This is precisely what I am defending--the use of PP's in a _secondary_ role, supporting and reinforcing the other laws. I have explicitly repudiated the doctrine which uses PP's as a _substitute_ for redress for damages, or as a primary penalty for infractions _per se_. 2) While the Laws in general are designed to give redress, surely L90 in particular is designed for punishment. > lawmakers had to give TDs the power to penalize the sort of > mechanical irregularities and misbehavior described in L90B, they > obviously did not intend that L90 intrude into matters of *bridge,* > which are the purview of lower-numbered laws. I disagree. PP's under L90 are not restricted to the specific examples provided by L90B. > > Failing to follow the rules in situations like this, by players > > who clearly should have known better, delays and obstructs the > game and > > inconveniences people. > > This sort of thinking is what the lawmakers evidently had in mind > when they wrote L90B to clarify what sort of offenses they had in That's not my interpretation at all. I think they wrote L90B to give examples of different kinds of actions a PP could be assigned for. That is, I think it was designed to _expand_ the use of PP's by giving examples, not _restrict_ the use of PP's by providing canonical cases. The use of the words "include but are not limited to" suggests this. > mind. I see nothing in L90B that hints of using L90 to deal with MI > or misuse of UI, or failing to perform a prescribed *bridge* action > at the right time (e.g., correct a revoke, correct a lead OOT, > correct partner's MI). I certainly agree that it is not one of the listed examples. > > {If other who favor the use of PP's in such situations had a > > different justification in mind, I welcome corrections.} > > ACBL TDs and ACs seem to have this justification: "If the Laws > don't punish, or don't punish sufficiently, we will!" _This_ use of PP's is not one I approve of. I think the question of whether to assign a PP should be completely separate from the adjudication of damage and redress, except in cases where [per David S.] the TD judges that a negative judgement has itself served the purpose of reminding the offender of his responsibilities. > > This should not be construed as defending those who routinely > > issue PP's in cases where the law allows no adjustment, simply in > order to > > penalize the infraction--i.e., "making that bid caused no damage, > so the > > OS gets to keep their top, so I'll penalize them 3 IMPs".] > > Which is exactly what is happening. As for punishing apparently > intentional irregularities with PPs, I'll add the following: > > The Laws assume that the game is played by honorable people. Here's > how the Laws of Contract Bridge (rubber bridge) puts it: "The Laws > are not designed to prevent dishonorable practices and there are no > penalties to cover intentional violations. In the absence of > penalty, moral obligations are strongest. Ostracism is the ultimate > remedy for intentional offenses." Unfortunately, ostracism has two serious drawbacks: 1) It requires very strong evidence on the part of the ostracizing body, and serious offenses. I would not consider banning a player from the local club because she neglects to correct MI [even though I suspect she does so deliberately], but giving a PP in hopes that she'll begin taking her legal responsibilities more seriously seems just right to me. {This isn't a hypothetical case.} 2) The use of PP's is designed to _avoid_ anything so final as ostracism, and avoid the direct accusation of cheating ostracism requires. > There is no hint of reducing the score of someone who misbehaves in > a way that is not penalized sufficiently by the Laws, and the same > principle surely applies to duplicate bridge. Penalties for > misbehavior not covered by the Laws should not be implemented by > changing legal scores. For gross cheating, you throw the bum out of I don't consider a PP a 'score adjustment' in an ordinary sense. > the rubber bridge club and don't pay his winnings. In a duplicate > game, you apply L91 and disqualify the culprit. Short of that, the > Laws do not address C&E matters, which means they should be handled > outside the game, not within the game. Here's our most serious disagreement. I want there to be an intermediate step between a warning and a C&E hearing. I think it's _good_ for the game to use PP's on people who are not exactly deliberately cheating, and not exactly concerning themselves with the Laws. > Now, I almost burned the taco meat! And this morning I was 20 > minutes late picking up my aunt and uncle to take them to the > airport, all because of Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8. Told them my > car wouldn't start. Now, let's see what else is in the in-box. I tell my students I got a long-distance phone call.... > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 01:47:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:47:07 +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 BAA29607 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:46:59 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA05764 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08541 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:49:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809081549.LAA08541@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > The offenders cannot be allowed to profit from the misinformation. There is > no automatic penalty for misinformation. The prescribed penalty is that if > the misinformation made a favorable result more likely then that favorable > result will be taken away from the offenders. The key question is _how much more likely_? Do you want to adjust if there's only a tiny chance the MI had any influence? (Some AC's have ruled that way.) Or do you demand that choosing the successful line be at least "at all probable" given the correct information? (This is what I've advocated in other messages.) Or do you have some other standard? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 02:32:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:24:56 +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 CAA00604 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:24:39 +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 JAA09186 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809081627.JAA09186@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: L12C2 Interpretation Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:26:14 -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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: 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. 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. That is not what the ACBL LC said at all. It said that "most favorable result that was likely" means at least one chance in three, not that "likely" means one chance in three, and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" means at least one chance in six, not that "probable" means one chance in six. Big difference. To put it another way, they said that the set of all favorable results that might occur for the NOS must exclude those that are unlikely, i.e., less than one chance in three. Does that mean that one chance in three is "likely?" No, it means that the set of favorable results with one chance in three or better is the "likely" set, while the others constitute the "unlikely" set. What has happened is that many ACs and TDs have gotten that word "likely" in their minds and will rule like this: "We could not determine what result would have been likely in the absence of the infraction, so we adjusted to average plus for the non-offenders, and average minus for the offenders." Of course that is a completely wrong interpretation of what the LC said, and is not what L12C2 says. The fact that it is an illegal adjustment on other grounds is a side issue. When knowledgeable ACs use the words "likely" and "probable," they have the right interpretation in mind, but by using these words alone in a published decision they are miscommunicating with those who are less knowledgeable. > > Hold on a sec! > > What do you mean when you say > > >"had the irregularity not occurred" > >applies to the NOS and not the OS > > ? > > As I read the law it applies to both sides - I can't imagine what it would > mean otherwise. For reference, here's the text: > > --- > > 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. > I, too, was of this opinion until it dawned on me why "had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be understood in the second clause. What the lawmakers evidently had in mind was that if the OS takes an action after the irregularity that could have resulted in a worse score than any "non-irregularity" result, that score (if it had one chance in six or better) should be assigned them. They deserve it. However, the NOS only deserves redress, which means pretending the irregularity did not occur. To make this clear, the last sentence of L12C2 should end with "in any case." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 02:57:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:57:43 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00947 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:57:34 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-225.uunet.be [194.7.13.225]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA03731 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:00:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F55D0E.8375C572@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 18:36:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Lille Appeals 1 and 22 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me let the cat (no name) out of the bag, Adam, and direct our readers to the case you want to have them discuss : 22 Adam Wildavsky wrote (in a previous thread) > > At 10:49 AM -0400 9/7/98, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > This seams clear to me, both as a matter of law and a matter of justice. > The offenders cannot be allowed to profit from the misinformation. There is > no automatic penalty for misinformation. The prescribed penalty is that if > the misinformation made a favorable result more likely then that favorable > result will be taken away from the offenders. Not to assess such a penalty, > in my opinion, makes a mockery both of the Laws and of justice. > How can anyone disagree when you put it like that ! > Let's look at it another way, from the point of view of the non-offenders, > as Jeff Rubens does in this month's Bridge World. West's decision on this > hand, though perhaps ill advised, was made considering only the universe of > hands where North held three diamonds. We cannot know for sure what West > would have bid had he considered instead the universe of hands where North > held four diamonds (or so), but If you have by now read Appeal 22, you will see that Adam has succeeded in finding the absolute least amount of MI ever to be found, but I grant that it is his right to question the ruling given over it. > (a) West could only have been more likely to make the correct decision, not > less. true. > (b) West was not given the opportunity at the table to demonstrate the > action he'd > have taken with the correct information. He deserved such an opportunity. true. > (c) In any case we cannot allow the offenders the benefit of the doubt here. > why not ? L12C2 allows for split-scores, but no other law says that the offenders are not allowed to profit when we find that the non-offenders are not damaged. I see no reason not to give the (possible) offenders the table score if we do the same for non-offenders, barring possible gross miss-play, and even then. But that's another thread. > Here's a third way to look at it. Must a pair play perfectly, or even well, > to receive redress? > No. > I have suggested that the only sensible way to interpret Law 40 is that in > order to adjust the score, the misinformation must have made the successful > action relatively less attractive compared to the successful action than > the correct information would have. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. > > AW My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more likely to choose B, which is more successfull. If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then this translates to, without the information, the player will still choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, 1% correction. But I feel there must be some lower threshold under which an AC can say, we do not consider this enough of a change in information to warrant a change in action. Especially if L12C3 is not to be used, as in ACBL, I feel the ruling in this case is correctly "no damage". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 03:26:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:26:04 +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 DAA01038 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:25:53 +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 KAA17087 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809081728.KAA17087@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:26:04 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I should probably send this to Grant Sterling privately, as I'm repeating myself, but maybe if he wants to bore eveyone else with more discussion of this, I'll go along. No, Grant, you're not boring, but the subject might be by this time. Grant C. Sterling wrote, but does not say who he is quoting: > > > But PP's _can_ and perhaps _should_ be used in cases where the > > > players committed or exacerbated infractions when given their > > experience > > > level they clearly should have known better. To give a PP for MI > > is > > > obviously inappropriate--but to give a PP to an experienced > > player who > > > knows his partner's explanation is incorrect but fails to correct > > it before > > > the opening lead is not. > > > > There are other laws for dealing with MI, whether corrected at the > > right time, the wrong time, or never. > > But I'm arguing that we're not penalizing for the MI, per se, but > rather because we judge that the infraction of not notifying the opponents > was one that never should have occurred except due to carelessness on the > part of the player. This carelessness has inconvenienced other players > [director calls almost always make the other players uncomfortable, and > when the TD is a playing director it's even worse], and L90 allows us to > give PP's for doing that. > Again, I only think such PP's are justified when it is clear the > player should have known better. And I'm arguing that the Laws are not meant to be used for such purposes, and that the sort of violations for which PPs are appropriate have been carefully described in L90B. Some say that L90B adds to L90A, but I say it explains the intent of L90A. A careless lead out of turn doesn't get a PP, does it, even though it inconveniences other players and the TD? > > > > There should be no PP's for > > > giving UI [or making the bid suggested by UI when there is an > > LA], but > > > an experienced player who said "I wish I could lead your suit" > > before his > > > opening lead [revealing a void] might get one. > > > > That UI would be handled by L16, a stern lecture, banishment, C&E > > procedures, or whatever. It's not grounds for a PP. > > Are you really saying that it is preferable to banish a player or > initiate C&E proceedings than to give a PP? No, why do you infer that? But it's preferable to give a lecture, a warning that failure to obey the TD in such matters *will* be the subject of a PP (L90B8), probation, short suspension, and other things that "whatever" covers, than to issue PPs right and left for violations that are not procedural violations. > > > Well, we on the other side point to the Scope of the Laws, which > > says "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." While the > > Two objections: > 1) It says "primarily", admitting that the Laws may allow the punishment > of irregularities as a secondary function. This is precisely what I am > defending--the use of PP's in a _secondary_ role, supporting and > reinforcing the other laws. I interpret "primarily" to mean that there are exceptions, and I see those exceptions described in L90 and L91. I see nothing in those Laws that gives a hint at using them as supplements to lower-numbered laws, which are sufficient in themselves. >I have explicitly repudiated the doctrine > which uses PP's as a _substitute_ for redress for damages, or as a primary > penalty for infractions _per se_. I don't think anyone has been accused of doing that. But even NABC ACs have issued PPs to penalize an infraction that did no damage, and have added PPs in addition to redress made for damage. I consider this to be illegal. > 2) While the Laws in general are designed to give redress, surely L90 in > particular is designed for punishment. Sure, for procedural violations of the sort described in L90B. That's a long list, surely enough to convey the intent of what constitutes an offense that may be subject to a PP. > > > lawmakers had to give TDs the power to penalize the sort of > > mechanical irregularities and misbehavior described in L90B, they > > obviously did not intend that L90 intrude into matters of *bridge,* > > which are the purview of lower-numbered laws. > > I disagree. PP's under L90 are not restricted to the specific > examples provided by L90B. They are restricted to the sorts of violation described there, IMO. > > > > Failing to follow the rules in situations like this, by players > > > who clearly should have known better, delays and obstructs the > > game and > > > inconveniences people. > > > > This sort of thinking is what the lawmakers evidently had in mind > > when they wrote L90B to clarify what sort of offenses they had in mind. > > That's not my interpretation at all. I think they wrote L90B to > give examples of different kinds of actions a PP could be assigned for. Exactly. But PPs are being assessed for actions that do not fit the general nature of those examples. > That is, I think it was designed to _expand_ the use of PP's by giving > examples, not _restrict_ the use of PP's by providing canonical cases. > The use of the words "include but are not limited to" suggests this. > > > I see nothing in L90B that hints of using L90 to deal with MI > > or misuse of UI, or failing to perform a prescribed *bridge* action > > at the right time (e.g., correct a revoke, correct a lead OOT, > > correct partner's MI). > > I certainly agree that it is not one of the listed examples. And easily could have been one, if they had that sort of thing in mind. > > > > {If other who favor the use of PP's in such situations had a > > > different justification in mind, I welcome corrections.} > > > > ACBL TDs and ACs seem to have this justification: "If the Laws > > don't punish, or don't punish sufficiently, we will!" > > _This_ use of PP's is not one I approve of. I think the question > of whether to assign a PP should be completely separate from the > adjudication of damage and redress, except in cases where [per David S.] > the TD judges that a negative judgement has itself served the purpose of > reminding the offender of his responsibilities. > > > This should not be construed as defending those who routinely > > > issue PP's in cases where the law allows no adjustment, simply in > > order to > > > penalize the infraction--i.e., "making that bid caused no damage, > > so the > > > OS gets to keep their top, so I'll penalize them 3 IMPs".] > > > > Which is exactly what is happening. As for punishing apparently > > intentional irregularities with PPs, I'll add the following: > > > > The Laws assume that the game is played by honorable people. Here's > > how the Laws of Contract Bridge (rubber bridge) puts it: "The Laws > > are not designed to prevent dishonorable practices and there are no > > penalties to cover intentional violations. In the absence of > > penalty, moral obligations are strongest. Ostracism is the ultimate > > remedy for intentional offenses." > > Unfortunately, ostracism has two serious drawbacks: > 1) It requires very strong evidence on the part of the ostracizing > body, and serious offenses. I would not consider banning a player from > the local club because she neglects to correct MI [even though I suspect > she does so deliberately], but giving a PP in hopes that she'll begin > taking her legal responsibilities more seriously seems just right to me. > {This isn't a hypothetical case.} I was quoting rubber bridge laws, not suggesting that ostracism is suitable for clubs. Clubs have other means of controlling the bad actors. What I was trying to convey was that you don't change scores (in rubber bridge or duplicate) when someone (for instance) communicates harmless MI. You warn them not to do that, that damage and redress for damage might result, that they should be more careful in future, and so forth. Maybe you take names, maybe you tell them they are on probation. Maybe, for really gross abusers, you tell them not to come back. But you don't change their scores with a PP. > 2) The use of PP's is designed to _avoid_ anything so final as > ostracism, and avoid the direct accusation of cheating ostracism requires. See previous comment. > > > There is no hint of reducing the score of someone who misbehaves in > > a way that is not penalized sufficiently by the Laws, and the same > > principle surely applies to duplicate bridge. Penalties for > > misbehavior not covered by the Laws should not be implemented by > > changing legal scores. For gross cheating, you throw the bum out of > > I don't consider a PP a 'score adjustment' in an ordinary sense. No comment. > > > the rubber bridge club and don't pay his winnings. In a duplicate > > game, you apply L91 and disqualify the culprit. Short of that, the > > Laws do not address C&E matters, which means they should be handled > > outside the game, not within the game. > > Here's our most serious disagreement. I want there to be an > intermediate step between a warning and a C&E hearing. I think it's > _good_ for the game to use PP's on people who are not exactly deliberately > cheating, and not exactly concerning themselves with the Laws. But the Laws do not allow scores to be changed for that reason. It's handy, it's easy, it works, as with the Mexico City police who collect fines on the spot for traffic violations. That doesn't make it right. There are plenty of remedies between a light lecture and a C&E hearing. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 03:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:54:37 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f241.hotmail.com [207.82.251.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01094 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:54:30 +1000 Received: (qmail 6860 invoked by uid 0); 8 Sep 1998 17:56:54 -0000 Message-ID: <19980908175654.6859.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.77 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Sep 1998 10:56:53 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.77] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 10:56:53 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a quick note, on one small part of this argument (I've expounded my reasoning before, and I'm following my bidding rule "When you've described your hand, and you aren't forced, shut up" :-) >From: "Grant C. Sterling" > > Here's our most serious disagreement. I want there to be an >intermediate step between a warning and a C&E hearing. I think it's >_good_ for the game to use PP's on people who are not exactly deliberately >cheating, and not exactly concerning themselves with the Laws. > Remember that (at least in some peoples' views on BLML, or we wouldn't have an acronym for it) a warning *is*, in many circumstances (including this one) a PP - a PPw, rather than a PPf. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 04:23:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:23:46 +1000 Received: from abest.com (adamw@mail.abest.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01221 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:23:39 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA17406; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: adamw@mail.datatone.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F5055A.B06AD054@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:18:32 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by abest.com id OAA17406 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:22 AM -0400 9/8/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're sa= ying >> is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage >> resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement >> correctly? >> > >English semantics professor wanted : > >When I hear the word "damage" I automatically think of an infraction >resulting in a bad score. > >Adam seems to be using the word damage as synonymous to "bad score". > >If he is right, then his sentence is correct. > >If I am right, my sentence was correct. I have no professor handy, so I tried m-w.com >Main Entry: dam=B7age >Function: noun >Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from dam damage, from Lat= in >damnum >Date: 14th century >1 : loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputatio= n >2 plural : compensation in money imposed by law for loss or injury >3 : EXPENSE, COST <"What's the damage?" he asked the waiter> Item 1 seems to be what we're looking for. I don't know how much this helps, though. The definition seems to require an agent of the injury, bu= t the injury could be self-inflicted. Thus, I can say that damage exists prima facie, and that the question to be answered is what the cause or causes of the damage were. >Anyway, I am trying to say that the AC and TD decided the bad score was >not caused by the infraction. > >I think that is what we mean by the short sentence : "misinformation, no >damage". > >Agreed ? (on wording ?) Not yet. I'm afraid the wording is not only ambiguous, but it serves to obscure the reasoning used. I expect we can all agree that it is not only important for directors and committees to make the best rulings they can, but also important for them to explain them as clearly as possible. If th= e Laws are not seen to be objectively and consistently enforced they will n= ot be respected and so not heeded. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 04:27:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:27:47 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01241 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:27:41 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjtv.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.191]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26084 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980908142838.00708dd8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 14:28:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:49 PM 9/7/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line >should also have been found. > This is obviously related to the discussions of several months ago on the differences between subsequent and consequent damage. I was a supporter of the "Kaplan doctrine" in those cases, and am as well here: to wit, that the connection between an irregularity and damage can be severed by an _egregious_ error by the NOS. If the point of the committee in #1 is that West's failure to bid 4S was an egregious error, sufficient to sever the link, then a) they should have made that clearer and b) I strongly disagree. Perhaps W should have bid on anyway. The point is debatable, but it does seem clear, as others have stated, that West's decision was made somewhat more difficult by the MI. Therefore he was damaged _by_ the MI and is entitled to redress. Someone else suggested that he should be compensated by some intermediate amount, reflecting the judgement that the damage was jointly the result of the MI and his own sub-par bidding. This might be theoretically more equitable, but certainly not what the Laws stipulate. OTOH, if we do accept the judgement that bidding 4S should have been virtually automatic even with the MI, then it is right to let the result stand. West's damage in that case would have been the result of his own poor decision-making, and not the consequence of the MI. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 04:32:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:32:22 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01287 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:32:14 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA224399705; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:35:06 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA027809704; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:35:04 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:34:46 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Dummy's rights Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all As you know, Law 43A 1a) reads now : " Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. " In a club, last week, a defender make a revoke, realised his mistake, =20 before established, and corrected it as permitted by Law 62. =20 Most of the time, in clubs where I play, offender is told by other players to let his first card faced on table and play it to the first legal opportunity. =20 Nobody cares about lead penalty. May dummy be the first to call the director after correction of a revoke, =20 allowing attention has already been drawn to the irregularity by the offender (when correcting the revoke)? If others players, includind declarer, agree not to call the director, (let first card on table and play it at the first opportunity) may dummy call= anyway, beeing aware of lead penalty? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 05:00:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:00:40 +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 FAA01430 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:00:32 +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 MAA28541; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809081902.MAA28541@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:00:00 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen > action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more > likely to choose B, which is more successfull. > > If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then > this translates to, without the information, the player will still > choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. > I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, > 1% correction. > > But I feel there must be some lower threshold under which an AC can say, > we do not consider this enough of a change in information to warrant a > change in action. > > Especially if L12C3 is not to be used, as in ACBL, I feel the ruling in > this case is correctly "no damage". Surely the thresholds established in L12C2 apply also to L12C3. According to the ACBL LC, those thresholds are 33% for the NOS and 16.7% for the OS. Do we agree with Steve Willner (if I understand him right), that (as an example) when five potential results, in the order of descending favorability, have probabilities of 15% each for the first four, and 60% for the fifth, you pick the third one when applying L12C2? To clarify, the scores are +120, +110, +100, +90, each with a guesstimated probability of 15%, and -50, 60%. You assign +100, as the accumulative probabilities reach 33% with that score. And normally the OS would get -110, using the 16.7% threshold. If we accept the ACBL LC guidelines for L12C3, then (assuming -50 is not a favorable result), you would give each of the four other scores a 25% probability in coming up with an assigned matchpoint score that is equitable. Is this reasonable? Legal? Am I understanding L12C3 correctly? I leave it to others to apply this idea to Appeal 1 in Lille, I wouldn't know how. I believe David Stevenson brought up this subject of multiple low-probability scores, but don't remember if it was resolved in any way other than what Steve suggested. I hope that in the near future, such questions can be submitted to the WBF LC, and bang, out comes an authoritative and documented statement on how L12C2 and L12C3 are to be applied in such cases. --- As an aside, I wonder if the AC was influenced somewhat by the unspoken opinion that E-W ought to have had a means of discovering the great "mesh" of the two hands (e.g., fit-showing jump in clubs, 3D splinter bid). Of course failure to have, or employ, such a tool, is not an "egregious" error that would disqualify E-W for redress if the MI caused significant damage. Just a thought. Maybe this thought was implied, if not spoken, for the AC wrote: "The Committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation. However, this was not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S. The Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway." "Not the main reason for the failure to bid 4S?" That doesn't sound right, as the MI only had to pass the thresholds of L12C2, which hardly have anything to do with the word "main." "Should have reached"? That doesn't right either. I am not going to disagree with the AC's decision, but the justification for it looks pretty shakey. To sound reasonable, it should read: "However, this was not a significant reason for the failure to bid 4S." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 05:24:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:24:44 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01545 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:24:37 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h4.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id XAA23490; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:27:22 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F61EBB.2E69@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 23:22:52 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 22 References: <35F55D0E.8375C572@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Herman:) Herman wrote: "If you have by now read Appeal 22, you will see that Adam has succeeded in finding the absolute least amount of MI ever to be found, but I grant that it is his right to question the ruling given over it." Are you sure, Herman, that Adam meant appeal # 22? It was me who asked in BLML the question about this case. Sorry, I am repeating once more: I was upset that the player, having tried to execute rights and obligations (under the Regulations), was punished. I was surprised that there were such Regulations, that there was only one such a case and that 2-3 seconds delaying (behind screen) could be possible to notice and to provide punishment. That's why I asked (in my post) you and David to make it more clear - as it may be a sufficient incident that will influent to future decision. By the way, would you be so kind, Herman, as to send me (if you have it) an official WBFLC interpretation (definition) of LA - EBL position will do too. Thank you in advance. Herman wrote: "L12C2 allows for split-scores, but no other law says that the offenders are not allowed to profit when we find that the non-offenders are not damaged. I see no reason not to give the (possible) offenders the table score if we do the same for non-offenders, barring possible gross miss-play, and even then. But that's another thread." I agree with most of your arguments in this post - but this one. Here you are right only if the case is out of L72B1 - cause theoretically it might be. One should specially prove that the case is not under this Law. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 05:32:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:32:09 +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 FAA01585 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 05:32:03 +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 PAA29941 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809081934.PAA07856@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Dummy's rights Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil writes: > Hi all > As you know, Law 43A 1a) reads now : > " Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, > dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. " > In a club, last week, a defender make a revoke, realised his mistake, > before established, and corrected it as permitted by Law 62. > Most of the time, in clubs where I play, offender is told by other > players > to let his first card faced on table and play it to the first legal > opportunity. > Nobody cares about lead penalty. > May dummy be the first to call the director after correction of a > revoke, allowing attention has already been drawn to the irregularity > by the offender (when correcting the revoke)? Law 9B1(b) gives dummy this right, whether or not the proper penalty has been assessed at the table. In a sense, dummy is also preventing declarer from committing an irregularity (if declarer plays on, having failed to summon the director, this is a violation of Law 9B1(a)), and dummy is allowed to do this as long as he has not forfeited his rights. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 06:27:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:27:57 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01778 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:27:51 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:30:44 -0700 Message-ID: <35F59482.A282E398@home.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 13:33:06 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 22 References: <35F55D0E.8375C572@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Let me let the cat (no name) out of the bag, Adam, and direct our > readers to the case you want to have them discuss : 22 Are you sure it's really case no 22 Adam is interested in? Adam wrote: > > I have suggested that the only sensible way to interpret Law 40 is that in > > order to adjust the score, the misinformation must have made the successful > > action relatively less attractive compared to the successful action than > > the correct information would have. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. > > Herman responded: > > My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen > action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more > likely to choose B, which is more successfull. > > If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then > this translates to, without the information, the player will still > choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. > I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, > 1% correction. > > But I feel there must be some lower threshold under which an AC can say, > we do not consider this enough of a change in information to warrant a > change in action. > > Especially if L12C3 is not to be used, as in ACBL, I feel the ruling in > this case is correctly "no damage". But aren't we now mixing apples and pears? The whole discussion is about whether L12 can be used to determine whether or not damage has occured as discussed in L40. Many seem to claim that you can't even look in L12 until you have made up your mind about L40, and this view seems logical to me. It seems equally logical that if you cannot use L12 as guidance, you must seek help elsewhere. If we are allowed to use common bridge-sense, it seems clear that 100% certainty that the damage resulted 100% from the infraction, should not be necessary to trigger L12. I sympathise with Adam's position that it should be enough that there is a causal link between the infraction and the damage, and that there is no reasonable way that the NOS would have taken a less sucessful action absent the infraction. There is additional support for this position: 1) L21 deals with the same infraction, but in a situation where a call can still be changed. It can be argued that NOS should not be worse off because it is too late to change the call. 21B1 allows a change of call if it was "probable" the call was affected by the infraction. 2) The mere fact that L12 carefully deals with *how* to adjust, and that NOS might actually not even get a better result even though L12 has been triggered, allows a "liberal" interpretation of L40C. If invoking L40C would trigger automatic penalties/adjustments, it would be more reasonable to argue for a "stricter" interpretation of L40C and/or for a complete definition to be included in L40C itself. 3) It is agreed by most that the purposes of the laws is not to give bridgelessons. Furthermore, the laws rarely deal with certainties. The laws are full of "could have" and "may have", so it seems reasonable to assume also in this case it is sufficient that the infraction made it more difficult for NOS to do the right thing, not insisting on the infraction making virtually impossible. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 06:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:40:24 +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 GAA01827 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 06:40:17 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA21070 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:41:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016992; Tue Sep 8 15:25:13 1998 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDDB44.ADD33100@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 16:21:05 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDDB44.ADD33100@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Controlled psyches Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:57:30 -0400 Encoding: 86 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Are you SURE you haven't been writing regulations for the ACBL in your spare time? ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:david@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, September 06, 1998 5:20 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: >> >> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass >> 2C >> >> The double and redouble were both strong and for penalties. Opener is >> expected to *always* pass the redouble. The TDs decided this was a >> Brown Sticker agreement and gave 40/60: the AC made it 20/50! >> >> The popular view was that these rulings were nothing to do with the >> Laws of the game. >> >> When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. >> >> I think I shall say that again. >> >> When you psyche it is legal unless it is in contravention of some Law. >I do not want to come out to strongly in favour of this appeal, but I >would like to try and explain the reasons behind it. > >If in this sequence, 2C is said "not to exist", and both partners >understand the meaning of it anyway, then that is surely evidence of the >bid to "exist". Yeah, sure. 1D P 2H [Strong, game forcing] P P Is that a Brown sticker agreement? ... or just bridge? To state that any bid which is impossible constitutes a Brown sticker agreement is just crazy. 1NT P 2C[Stayman] P 5D Is that a Brown sticker agreement? 1NT P 4C[Gerber] P 7H Is that a Brown sticker agreement? Of course both partners *know* when a bid is made that is impossible in their system. The fact that they had some vague idea of what is going on is general bridge knowledge, not an agreement. >2C simply means : the 1NT opening has been a psyche. That's general bridge knowledge: if your partner makes an impossible bid, and you would know what it would mean between two opponents unknown to you that is no evidence you have an agreement. I hate this method of making up an agreement which you and I will have, Herman, when we play our first board. If the bidding goes 1NT D R P 2C I will "know" you have psyched even if it is our first board, and to say that it is an illegal agreement even when the authority knows it isn't as an illegal way of controlling psyches disgusts me. Why don't they just publish a regulation: Regulation One. Notwithstanding the Laws of Bridge, if you psyche and your opponents object we are going to screw you because otherwise your opponents might cry. Regulation Two. We shall pretend it is an illegal agreement even though we know it isn't in case anyone notices that we are not following the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:21:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:21:39 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01984 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:21:32 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id RAA13605; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809081539.LAA08522@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:24:07 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 AM -0400 9/8/98, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >> although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >> the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line >> should also have been found. > >I don't see how the above question is appropriate under any reading >of the Laws. Me neither. This is one of Jeff Rubens' points in his "Unappealing Appeals" editorial. >The main question is not what a player did given the MI; it is what >he would have done given correct information. Thus, _given correct >information_, is it "probable" or "at all likely" that the successful >line would have been found? > >Under the Kaplan doctrine, widely but not universally accepted, there >is a secondary question: was the actual line, _given the MI_, an >"egregious error" or "wild or gambling?" The question of whether it >was an ordinary bridge mistake, as Herman seems to be asking, should >not be a consideration. Does the Kaplan doctrine apply here? I had understood that Kaplan intended it to apply only when the NOS was already aware of the potential infraction, e.g., after an action possibly based on UI. In the case in question the NOS became aware of the MI only after the conclusion of the hand. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:23:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:23:12 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA02012 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:23:06 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:25:54 -0700 Message-ID: <35F5A170.2DAF665F@home.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 14:28:16 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: <3.0.1.32.19980908142838.00708dd8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Someone else suggested that he should be compensated by some > intermediate amount, > reflecting the judgement that the damage was jointly the result of the > MI and his own sub-par bidding. This might be theoretically more > equitable but certainly not what the Laws stipulate. Since I believe I was the "someone", let me just say that I assumed the new L12C3 allowed such inbetween scores if the AC perceives this achieves equity. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:31:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:32 +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 HAA02061 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:24 +1000 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zGVP0-0007tG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:34:18 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:55:51 +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 "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 > > Bill Segraves wrote: > > > > >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some kind > >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? > > 4S. WTP? +++ Of course I am out of date; that sort of bid used to deny a 1st rd control in old, old Acol. But what we need to ask here is what it would mean to this partnership. ~~ Grattan (Appeals Committees Convenor in Lille) ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:31:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:39 +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 HAA02070 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:30 +1000 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zGVP4-0007tG-00; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:34:22 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Christian Bernscherer" , Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:20:03 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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) > > > > Maybe some knowledgeable person can explain the legal ways that > > L12C3 may be applied. > > +++ Before Sao Paolo I had written to suggest incorporation of this theme in the laws. At Sao Paolo the idea was discussed. EK was not over enthusiastic but I persisted in the meetings to pursue the thought. The actual wording of the footnote then added to Law 12C2 was suggested by Denis Howard. The intention was to give appeals committees unfettered judgement to amend a director's assigned adjustment in whatever way the AC considered nearest to achieving equity between the sides at the table. I have a feeling this was too sweeping for the ACBL and led to omission of the footnote from ACBL publication. Since it was instituted the WBF Committee has not commented further to the best of my knowledge other than to agree its replacement in 1997 with the present Law 12C3, which perhaps speaks for itself in the light of the above. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:31:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:43 +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 HAA02072 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:32 +1000 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zGVP6-0007tG-00; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:34:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:27:38 +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: David Stevenson > > > > Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and > myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and > not published, all written by Herman or me. +++ I have brought away with me the original appeal forms of virtually all or perhaps all of the appeals. Given a day or two I will pass photocopies to DWS and he can see if he can make anything of them if he wishes. I have only just arrived home Tuesday evening. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:31:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:45 +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 HAA02077 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:33 +1000 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zGVP8-0007tG-00; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:34:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:53:31 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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: Tim Goodwin > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Controlled psyches > Date: 04 September 1998 13:26 > > >>David (DWS) wrote: > >>> > >>> Along these lines there was a bidding sequence in Lille: > >>> > >>> 1NT Dbl Rdbl Pass > >>> 2C> > ++ Richard Colker took a copy of this one away with him. Expect something from him when he has time to comment. Also expect something from me when I am ready to relay info about Laws Committee matters = only after NBOs and ZOs have a first sight of the results of three meetings. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 07:31:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:46 +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 HAA02076 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:31:32 +1000 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zGVP7-0007tG-00; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:34:25 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:38:08 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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 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. +++ That is what was intended in 1987. I have heard of no WBF comment of later date. A fresh review would not now be possible until Bermuda should anyone think it necessary. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 08:20:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:20:22 +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 IAA02207 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:20:14 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA10240 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:22:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 8 Sep 98 23:21 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! 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: David Stevenson wrote: > > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >At 6:03 PM -0400 8/26/98, Steve Willner wrote: > > >>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. > > >Hold on a sec! > > > >What do you mean when you say > > > >>"had the irregularity not occurred" > >>applies to the NOS and not the OS > > > >? > > > >As I read the law it applies to both sides - I can't imagine what it > would > >mean otherwise. For reference, here's the text: > > > >--- > > > >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. > > > >--- > > There are two decisions for the TD/AC. > > [1] > >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 > > [2] > >When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a > result > >actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for an offending > > side, the most unfavourable result that was > >at all probable. > > Granted they normally come to the same result, but not always, and > then we have a "split" score. The words "had the irregularity not > occurred" do not appear in [2] and occasionally this becomes relevant. > David, while your interpretation seems semantically permissible it is not, IMO, the way that the majority of people (or even lawyers) would interpret it. Rather the actual words are intended to avoid the overly clumsy: 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, *had the irregularity not occurred*. The ** modifier is implicit in the context and need not be repeated. Consider Game ALL: Dealer W W N E S 4S Slow X P 5H P P 5S P P P 5H goes down 4 on best defence but it is judged that any bid other than P is tainted by UI. Adjusting to 990 seems equitable, adjusting to 1100 does not (if we believe that W will never redouble). If your interpretation is "official" I do not believe the policy has been effectively communicated to the playing public. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 08:20:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:20:23 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02210 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:20:17 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA10255 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:22:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 8 Sep 98 23:21 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 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: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that > although the correct information might lead the player more easily to > the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line > should also have been found. Does this differ from the question: Suppose a player has some misinformation and takes a poor view. The TD and AC decide that, despite the fact that the correct information would have made taking a poor view somewhat less likely, the player in question would probably have taken the poor view anyway? I ask because my instinctive response to the two questions is different! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 10:10:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:10:51 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02448 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:10:45 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.223] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zGXqs-0000aD-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:11:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bddb86$96012540$df3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:12:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Much sense has already been talked about this appeal. I am about to talk nonsense. When I read the appeal report, my first instinct was to disagree quite violently with the AC ruling. After all, in the auction that happened at the table, West's final decision was to a great extent bound to be based on the number of quick diamond losers that his side might have. Now, the MI that West had received from South led him to believe, erroneously, that this number would be greater by at least one, and quite possibly two, than it actually was - hence, he selected a conservative action. This seemed to me an open and shut case of a player being induced by MI ("damaged", if you will) to select a losing action. Mr Wildavsky's arguments support this case most ably. But there is a little more to it than that. In this country and (as far as I am aware) in others, there is an onus on a player to "know" that he is being misinformed, and the more expert the player, the greater the onus. It is pretty much inconceivable that this auction: S W N E P P 1D 1S X XX P P 3D shows three-card diamond support, whatever South might have told West. No one in the civilised world would bid like that, and the AC may very well have taken the view that West was a good enough player to know this. (What, or whether, the AC actually thought was not clear; the scribe's rendition that EW "ought to have bid 4S anyway" begs a number of questions.) Now, it may very well be that the world is unprepared for my view that a player cannot claim to have been damaged by MI if it can be shown that he knew perfectly well that MI was what he was being given. However, we in England admit the truth of this to some extent: if you claim that you'd have doubled (1N) P (2C) for a club lead, but for the fact that no one alerted so you did not know it was Stayman, a short pier will be recommended to you as the venue for a long walk. The question's very much too wide, and much too round, and much too hollow, And learned men on either side use arguments I cannot follow... Obiter: playing in 4S with: AKQJx xxx x J10xx xxx x Jxxx AKQxx after two rounds of hearts (good defence by Wang Wenfei and her partner, whom I did not recognise but was likely to be a top Chinese player), should one - at matchpoints - risk a diamond at trick three? I cravenly cashed out, thinking that I was in a spot the field might not reach and not wanting to go down with trumps 4-1. 620 was above average, but it is curious that the only scores being discussed were 200 and 650. What price "at all probable", or was that some other thread? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 10:45:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:45:06 +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 KAA02529 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:44:59 +1000 Received: from client26f3.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.243] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zGYQK-0003EI-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:47:53 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddb8b$e5fad500$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 must be one in a million people who never jump to the immediate conclusion that partner has psyched. Some years ago, as a spirited beginner, my partner had a reputation for psyching.Since we have played together (15yrs) he has psyched about three times. The likelyhood of a psyche is not foremost in my mind. In the auction 1NT-Dbl-Rdbl(strong)-P-2C?? I assume he has forgotten that Rdl is strrong and we do not play a wriggle in this auction. We has an auction recently. 1NT-P-2H(natural and forcing)-P-2S(systemically showing max and having 4Spades-P-3H-P-4S(does not exist.)All Pass.[2H was alerted as it would have been whether it was forcing, or a transfer. 2S was not alerted]When asked I say "either a wheel has come off, or [laughingly]partner has opened 1NT with a six card spade suit and a heart void. Obviously to all at the table, partner thinks this is a transfer sequence.We were all correct. Should I be branded as fielding a psyche, if in fact partner turned up with 7 small Spades and a Heart void? Why is it that a psyche should be assumed in either sequence. I suspect from what I have read recently, that I am on a different wave-length than most. Will someone please explain, what are the preconditions required for a players actions to be deemed a "field"? Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 4:43 PM Subject: Re: Controlled psyches >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 10:20 PM 9/6/98 +0100, David wrote: >> >>>Why don't >>>they just publish a regulation: >>> >>> Regulation One. Notwithstanding the Laws of Bridge, if you psyche >>>and your opponents object we are going to screw you because otherwise >>>your opponents might cry. >>> >>> Regulation Two. We shall pretend it is an illegal agreement even >>>though we know it isn't in case anyone notices that we are not following >>>the Laws. >> >>Or adopt the ACBL's wording, which is somewhat different, but comes down to >>the same bottom line? > > Are you sure, Eric? I thought the problem is not that the ACBL's >wording says this, but that some people's interpretation of it does. >There is IMO an enormous difference: in the latter case our discussions, >and discussions caused by us, and other people's discussions after >Lille may change some of the interpretations: if it is the former case >it needs a regulation change. > > What's it say? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 11:18:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:18:23 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA02621 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:18:16 +1000 Received: from modem24.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zGYwW-0001nv-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:21:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal no. 23 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:20:12 +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 "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) > > I can proceed thru IBPA, and/or WBF, and/or various NCBO's organs, but I > feel I should first seek guidance within this group, particularly since > it includes Grattan and David. > ++++ Like the genie I hear the fingers stroking the lamp...... I pass no comment on the views I have read but it is appropriate to establish one or two facts. Bobby Wolff was the Chairman of the Tournament Appeals Committee from which the various Appeals Committees were constituted. Herman was added to the Committee at Steen Moeller's suggestion. I was the Convenor of the AC's, and so established their composition for each appeal and covered any hole. Bobby had two Vice Chairmen - Steen and Joan Gerard. Richard Colker, Eric Kokish, Jean-Paul Meyer each also acted as AC Chairmen when required - there were a lot of appeals to handle, altho' not exceptional for this form of Championships. The actions on which you are passing comment conformed to the regulations governing the conduct of appeals at these championships. I was instructed that an AC could comprise one person; it never did - a couple of appeals were heard by a committee of two, five was the aim and quite often the number was three. That is, with a couple of exceptions, we ran committees of three to five. One larger committee looked into a more profound question that arose. I created a fresh departure for the WBF, in my experience, when I made up one committee of five with the inclusion of only one man in an appeal involving two all-male partnerships.... It is not fair to label the matter you do not like as 'American', as someone has; that oversimplifies. Amongst the fiercer comments in Lille were a number by ACBL persons of prominence. Bobby had supporters, if not many, amongst the non-ACBL people present. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 12:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:15:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA02742 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:15:03 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGZpT-00030M-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:17:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:09:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >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 > >> > >> Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and >> myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and >> not published, all written by Herman or me. > >+++ I have brought away with me the original appeal forms of virtually all >or perhaps all of the appeals. Given a day or two I will pass photocopies >to >DWS and he can see if he can make anything of them if he wishes. I have >only just arrived home Tuesday evening. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ I suppose we'll all have to get the FLB out now you're both back. We had a great party while you were in Lille :) -- 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 Sep 9 12:15:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:15:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA02741 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:15:02 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGZpS-0006nk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 02:17:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:14:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >Hi all > >As you know, Law 43A 1a) reads now : >" Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, >dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. " > >In a club, last week, a defender make a revoke, realised his mistake, >before established, and corrected it as permitted by Law 62. > >Most of the time, in clubs where I play, offender is told by other >players >to let his first card faced on table and play it to the first legal >opportunity. >Nobody cares about lead penalty. > >May dummy be the first to call the director after correction of a >revoke, >allowing attention has already been drawn to the irregularity by the >offender (when correcting the revoke)? > >If others players, includind declarer, agree not to call the director, >(let >first card on table and play it at the first opportunity) may dummy call >anyway, beeing aware of lead penalty? > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City If I'm visiting I wouldn't call, if it's my "home" club I'm content to go with the flow. In a Tourney I call in the police. There is an irregularity of which I'm aware. -- 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 Sep 9 14:10:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:10:48 +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 OAA02926 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:10:43 +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 VAA09911 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809090412.VAA09911@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:10:37 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott (who has taken to granting anonymity to those quoted) wrote: > > > > > > Maybe some knowledgeable person can explain the legal ways that > > > L12C3 may be applied. > > > > +++ Before Sao Paolo I had written to suggest incorporation > of this theme in the laws. At Sao Paolo the idea was discussed. EK was > not over enthusiastic but I persisted in the meetings to pursue the > thought. > The actual wording of the footnote then added to Law 12C2 was suggested > by Denis Howard. The intention was to give appeals committees unfettered > judgement to amend a director's assigned adjustment in whatever way the > AC considered nearest to achieving equity between the sides at the table. But what if the TD did not assign a score? Then what? No L12C3?? > I have a feeling this was too sweeping for the ACBL and led to omission > of the footnote from ACBL publication. Since it was instituted the WBF > Committee has not commented further to the best of my knowledge other > than to agree its replacement in 1997 with the present Law 12C3, which > perhaps speaks for itself in the light of the above. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ It speaks with little clarity: L12C3: ...an appeals committee can vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. WTH does that mean? I've been asking that for a year now, and no one can tell me. Does "vary" mean splitting a score? Changing what the TD assigned? Apportioning scores according to probability? Ignoring the "likely" and "at all probable" favorable/unfavorable results language of L12C2? All of those? What? Why not just say, "...an appeals committee can assign scores in any way it wishes in order to do equity."? No wonder the ACBL rejected L12C3. Good for them! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 14:18:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:18:57 +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 OAA02942 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:18:50 +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 VAA10993; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809090421.VAA10993@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 21:18:48 -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 Endicott wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson (in re L12C2's last 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. > > +++ That is what was intended in 1987. I have heard of no WBF > comment of later date. A fresh review would not now be possible > until Bermuda should anyone think it necessary. ~~ Grattan ~~ > +++ > Not necessary, the 1997 wording is logical. An OS should be assigned an unfavorable result that was at all probable *after* the infraction, if it is worse than any result that would have occurred absent the infraction. Why not? To clarify L12C2, it would be advisable to add "in any case" to end the last clause. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 16:55:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:55:07 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA03132 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:55:04 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn1p42.ozemail.com.au [203.108.217.106]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01302 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:57:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:57:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809090657.QAA01302@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:12 AM 9/09/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Much sense has already been talked about this appeal. I am about to >talk nonsense. snip >But there is a little more to it than that. In this country and (as >far as I am aware) in others, there is an onus on a player to "know" >that he is being misinformed, and the more expert the player, the >greater the onus. It is pretty much inconceivable that this auction: > >S W N E > P P >1D 1S X XX >P P 3D > >shows three-card diamond support, whatever South might have told West. Thank you for bringing this matter up. I thought I might be alone in wondering why the AC did not specifically canvass this idea. I believe this doctrine applies in Australia although I don't know where it appears in print. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:08:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:08:39 +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 ESMTP id UAA03387 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:08:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGhDi-0005VA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:11:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 16:41:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 10:28 PM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>At 10:39 AM -0400 9/7/98, David Stevenson wrote: >>>>I believe that the AC did not adjust because in their >>>>bridge judgement there was no damage resulting from the misinformation: >>> >>>I'm trying to be careful with terminology here. What I think you're saying >>>is that the AC agreed that there was damage, but not that the damage >>>resulted from the misinformation. Have I interpreted your statement >>>correctly? >> >> No. Once the AC decides there is no damage consequent on the >>irregularity it does not matter whether the pair has damaged itself or >>whether there was no damage. > >I'm understanding you less well, now, not more, so I'm going to try and >focus on what you mean here. First, here's the relevant part of Law 40 >again: > >"If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its >opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may >award an adjusted score." > >I think you (and most of us, thanks to Edgar) translate the word "through" >here to the concept "consequent to" or "as a consequence of". Am I correct? Yes. >When I interpret this I do so in stages. First I look for damage - if >there's no damage, there can be no damage consequent to anything. When I >look for damage I find it, namely the difference between +200 the NO side >scored and the +650 they might have scored. Are we agreed so far? As Herman has pointed out there is a slight problem with the word "damage". Perhaps we need a definition. However, in the cited case the Committee believed there was no damage consequent on the MI. >Only once I've found damage do I look to see what might have led to the >damage. Whatever the circumstances one could say that West's Pass led to >the damage, since he'd have scored better had he bid. That is not the >intent of the law, or we would never adjust. One could say that West's >Pass, -which was a mistake given the information he had-, led to the >damage. I disagree with this approach, and am willing to argue against it, >but only if that's what you (or anyone reading this!) are asserting. Am I >close, or did you mean something else? We are getting there. What would have happened without the infraction? The AC's view is that the pair would have got 200, so there was no damage consequent on the MI. The semantics over the meaning of the word "damage" are merely confusing matters - though I accept it would be better if we sorted them out. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:54:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:34 +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 UAA03470 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:27 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20268 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F65117.295EF1B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:57:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809081712.NAA25509@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes: > > > > > > Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that > > although the correct information might lead the player more easily to > > the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line > > should also have been found. > > > > I hate the word should here. > Then what word to describe what I am trying to say ? could? was likely to? no single expression can really express what I mean. > My feeling is that bridge is a game of mistakes. If a piece > of information would make a mistake less likely then I think a > strong case for an adjustment is made. > I agree, but there must be som lower treshold for this. Read Lille Appeal 26 and tell me if this does not fall under some treshold ! > Should have had no consequence isn't good enough for me. I think > a lot of the trully goofy decisions come from committees trying > to prove that something (usually MI) shouldn't have mattered. > That's not fair. The fact is, that players should not stop playing bridge. Or rather, they should accept that their unsuccessful decision is not automatically overturned the moment they find some misinformation which points is the correct direction. > To me it's as simple as > > Was there MI? If yes, was there an increased chance of the NOS > "doing the right thing". If yes, adjust. > You are right, provided you put a "significantly" before increased. > Note that I'm not saying always adjust if there's MI and the NOS > "does the wrong thing". It's quite possible to rule MI, no damage. Which is what was done in appeals 1 and 26. > -- > RNJ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:54:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:25 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03462 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:19 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20251 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F650FF.D09B5DD7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:57:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [Fwd: Lille Appeal 1] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------73CBEF5EC76FCDB82AC4B1D5" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------73CBEF5EC76FCDB82AC4B1D5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Ron sent this to me rather than the list) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html --------------73CBEF5EC76FCDB82AC4B1D5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from calcium.uunet.be (calcium.uunet.be [194.7.1.23]) by oxygen.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12430 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:12:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by calcium.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA19488 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:12:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id NAA25509 for hermandw@village.uunet.be; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:12:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199809081712.NAA25509@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 To: hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:12:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Sep 7, 98 04:49:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herman De Wael writes: > > > Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that > although the correct information might lead the player more easily to > the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line > should also have been found. > I hate the word should here. My feeling is that bridge is a game of mistakes. If a piece of information would make a mistake less likely then I think a strong case for an adjustment is made. Should have had no consequence isn't good enough for me. I think a lot of the trully goofy decisions come from committees trying to prove that something (usually MI) shouldn't have mattered. To me it's as simple as Was there MI? If yes, was there an increased chance of the NOS "doing the right thing". If yes, adjust. Note that I'm not saying always adjust if there's MI and the NOS "does the wrong thing". It's quite possible to rule MI, no damage. -- RNJ --------------73CBEF5EC76FCDB82AC4B1D5-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:54:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:53 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03492 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:45 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20291 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F653D3.B208AC7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:09:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: 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 MAA20291 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >=20 > >English semantics professor wanted : > > > >When I hear the word "damage" I automatically think of an infraction > >resulting in a bad score. > > > >Adam seems to be using the word damage as synonymous to "bad score". > > > >If he is right, then his sentence is correct. > > > >If I am right, my sentence was correct. >=20 > I have no professor handy, so I tried m-w.com >=20 > >Main Entry: dam=B7age > >Function: noun > >Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from dam damage, from L= atin > >damnum > >Date: 14th century > >1 : loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputat= ion >=20 > Item 1 seems to be what we're looking for. I don't know how much this > helps, though. The definition seems to require an agent of the injury, = but > the injury could be self-inflicted. Thus, I can say that damage exists > prima facie, and that the question to be answered is what the cause or > causes of the damage were. >=20 > >Anyway, I am trying to say that the AC and TD decided the bad score wa= s > >not caused by the infraction. > > > >I think that is what we mean by the short sentence : "misinformation, = no > >damage". > > > >Agreed ? (on wording ?) >=20 > Not yet. I'm afraid the wording is not only ambiguous, but it serves to > obscure the reasoning used. I expect we can all agree that it is not on= ly > important for directors and committees to make the best rulings they ca= n, > but also important for them to explain them as clearly as possible. If = the > Laws are not seen to be objectively and consistently enforced they will= not > be respected and so not heeded. OK, in future I shall write : minisinformation, damage non-consequent, no adjustment. OK ? --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:54:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:56 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03493 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:45 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20305 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F65469.9E2641F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:11:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980908142838.00708dd8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 04:49 PM 9/7/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that > >although the correct information might lead the player more easily to > >the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line > >should also have been found. > > > This is obviously related to the discussions of several months ago on the > differences between subsequent and consequent damage. I was a supporter of > the "Kaplan doctrine" in those cases, and am as well here: to wit, that the > connection between an irregularity and damage can be severed by an > _egregious_ error by the NOS. > Not at all the case under question here. The subsequent error is by no means egregious. The player has two choices and chooses the less successful one. Given a correct information, the chances of his finding the more successful one are larger, but not very much larger. Now what ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:55:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:55:06 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03506 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:54:56 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20317 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F659E0.7455FDE5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:35:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 22 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35F55D0E.8375C572@village.uunet.be> <35F61EBB.2E69@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OOOOOOOOPPPPSSS vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > Hi Herman:) > > Herman wrote: > "If you have by now read Appeal 22, you will see that Adam has succeeded > in finding the absolute least amount of MI ever to be found, but I grant > that it is his right to question the ruling given over it." > > Are you sure, Herman, that Adam meant appeal # 22? It was me No, of course not. 22 was my original number. The one I intend is 26. I am starting the thread again with a correct title. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:55:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:55:15 +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 UAA03525 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:55:05 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20328 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F65A29.5A766E00@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:36:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (corrected title and restart - sorry) Let me let the cat (no name) out of the bag, Adam, and direct our readers to the case you want to have them discuss : 26 Adam Wildavsky wrote (in a previous thread) > > At 10:49 AM -0400 9/7/98, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > This seams clear to me, both as a matter of law and a matter of justice. > The offenders cannot be allowed to profit from the misinformation. There is > no automatic penalty for misinformation. The prescribed penalty is that if > the misinformation made a favorable result more likely then that favorable > result will be taken away from the offenders. Not to assess such a penalty, > in my opinion, makes a mockery both of the Laws and of justice. > How can anyone disagree when you put it like that ! > Let's look at it another way, from the point of view of the non-offenders, > as Jeff Rubens does in this month's Bridge World. West's decision on this > hand, though perhaps ill advised, was made considering only the universe of > hands where North held three diamonds. We cannot know for sure what West > would have bid had he considered instead the universe of hands where North > held four diamonds (or so), but If you have by now read Appeal 26, you will see that Adam has succeeded in finding the absolute least amount of MI ever to be found, but I grant that it is his right to question the ruling given over it. > (a) West could only have been more likely to make the correct decision, not > less. true. > (b) West was not given the opportunity at the table to demonstrate the > action he'd > have taken with the correct information. He deserved such an opportunity. true. > (c) In any case we cannot allow the offenders the benefit of the doubt here. > why not ? L12C2 allows for split-scores, but no other law says that the offenders are not allowed to profit when we find that the non-offenders are not damaged. I see no reason not to give the (possible) offenders the table score if we do the same for non-offenders, barring possible gross miss-play, and even then. But that's another thread. > Here's a third way to look at it. Must a pair play perfectly, or even well, > to receive redress? > No. > I have suggested that the only sensible way to interpret Law 40 is that in > order to adjust the score, the misinformation must have made the successful > action relatively less attractive compared to the successful action than > the correct information would have. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. > > AW My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more likely to choose B, which is more successfull. If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then this translates to, without the information, the player will still choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, 1% correction. But I feel there must be some lower threshold under which an AC can say, we do not consider this enough of a change in information to warrant a change in action. Especially if L12C3 is not to be used, as in ACBL, I feel the ruling in this case is correctly "no damage". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 20:55:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:55:33 +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 UAA03548 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:55:26 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20311 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F654EB.93A230E5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:14:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809081902.MAA28541@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: > > > > > But I feel there must be some lower threshold under which an AC > can say, > > we do not consider this enough of a change in information to > warrant a > > change in action. > > > > Especially if L12C3 is not to be used, as in ACBL, I feel the > ruling in > > this case is correctly "no damage". > > Surely the thresholds established in L12C2 apply also to L12C3. > NO, not at all. In the cases in question, the two options open to NOS are both likely, both with and without the misinformation. The problem comes because the successful choice is a little more likely without the misinformation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 21:02:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:02:55 +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 VAA03596 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:02:47 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-145.access.net.il [192.116.204.145]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA11476; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:05:19 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35F660D9.7F5B8CF8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:04:58 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I think that trying to define "at all probable" and "likely" is a #trouble# which many TDs and ACCs' members has to deal with. The real difficult problem is to evaluate the players ' bridge skills - not only those involved in the problematic board, but all the contestants . i am sure that mr. Wolff would make a different call from mine or even from Branco or ...etc. Now the question is how the respectable members of an AC can evaluate the level and skills of 200 or up pairs in that contest .... MHO is that we can never provide a mathematical solution for the "likely" and "at all probably" as much as we don't define very accurate mathematically the players' skills. I think again that many of us overemphasized the issue ; as I told many times previously , even if we'll give the task to two different ACs , parallel - I'll be very surprised if there will more than 25% when both will decide the same decision........ Dany Grattan wrote: > > 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 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. > > +++ That is what was intended in 1987. I have heard of no WBF > comment of later date. A fresh review would not now be possible > until Bermuda should anyone think it necessary. ~~ Grattan ~~ > +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 21:19:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:19:31 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03639 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:19:25 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id HAA20802; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809081549.LAA08541@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:22:12 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:49 AM -0400 9/8/98, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Wildavsky >> The offenders cannot be allowed to profit from the misinformation. There is >> no automatic penalty for misinformation. The prescribed penalty is that if >> the misinformation made a favorable result more likely then that favorable >> result will be taken away from the offenders. > >The key question is _how much more likely_? Do you want to adjust if >there's only a tiny chance the MI had any influence? (Some AC's have >ruled that way.) Or do you demand that choosing the successful line >be at least "at all probable" given the correct information? (This >is what I've advocated in other messages.) Or do you have some other >standard? That is indeed a key question, one that Law 12C2 provides guidance for but Law 40 does not. So, no, I don't want to adjust, however small the chance, if we accept that adjusting to the result achieved at the table is no adjustment at all. I do want to apply the criteria in 12C2, as the law requires if the MI might have influenced the result. Had the committee said that, in the absense of the MI, +200 was both the most favorable result likely for the NOS and the must unfavorable result that was at all probable for the OS I would have disagreed with their judgement, but I would agree that they had applied the Laws correctly. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 21:31:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:31:15 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03676 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:31:09 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id HAA21958; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:33:47 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 AM -0400 9/8/98, David Stevenson wrote: > We are getting there. > > What would have happened without the infraction? The AC's view is >that the pair would have got 200, so there was no damage consequent on >the MI. That may be what they meant, but that's not what they said. Further, the Laws recognize that one cannot know with certainty what would have happened absent an infraction. That is the reason for the probabalistic tests specified in Law 12C2. That is also why it is improper for the committee to judge what would have happened without the infraction in any way other than by referring to Law 12C2. They do need to pass the Law 40 test before the Law 12C2 test, but that is to establish that there is a causal link, however tenuous, between the infraction and the damage. They may judge the link as so tenuous as to not have been "at all probable" to affect the result, but they may properly do that only under Law 12C2. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 22:07:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:07:00 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03825 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:06:52 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id IAA02559; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F65469.9E2641F8@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980908142838.00708dd8@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:02:18 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:11 AM -0400 9/9/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> At 04:49 PM 9/7/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >> >> >Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >> >although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >> >the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line >> >should also have been found. >> > >> This is obviously related to the discussions of several months ago on the >> differences between subsequent and consequent damage. I was a supporter of >> the "Kaplan doctrine" in those cases, and am as well here: to wit, that the >> connection between an irregularity and damage can be severed by an >> _egregious_ error by the NOS. >> > >Not at all the case under question here. > >The subsequent error is by no means egregious. > >The player has two choices and chooses the less successful one. >Given a correct information, the chances of his finding the more >successful one are larger, but not very much larger. > >Now what ? Now Law 12C2. It surely has been crafted for situations just such as this. Not only must we take advantage of it, we should be delighted to. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 22:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:07:11 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03833 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:06:59 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id IAA02570; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F653D3.B208AC7C@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:08:39 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:09 AM -0400 9/9/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK, in future I shall write : minisinformation, damage non-consequent, >no adjustment. > >OK ? Definitely! Seriously, regardless of the English meanings of the terms I think this usage is more helpful because it allows us to distinguish between this kind case and cases where there is in fact no damage at all. In the case in question I have argued that the damage was indeed consequent, but now we can at least agree as to what we're arguing about! AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 22:07:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:07:09 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03835 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:06:59 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id IAA02565; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:07:50 -0400 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:21 PM -0400 9/8/98, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <35F3F26B.A08246AA@village.uunet.be> >Herman De Wael wrote: >> Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >> although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >> the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line >> should also have been found. > >Does this differ from the question: > >Suppose a player has some misinformation and takes a poor view. The TD and >AC decide that, despite the fact that the correct information would have >made taking a poor view somewhat less likely, the player in question would >probably have taken the poor view anyway? > >I ask because my instinctive response to the two questions is different! As you'll guess from my recent messages, I agree that the questions are different, but not that either is one that should properly be asked. I've already asserted that the first question is improper under the Laws, and I don't think I've met substantial opposition on that point. The second is closer to being proper, but the key word is "probably". The term in English is vague, so the Laws provide guidance, in the form of, yes, Law 12C2. So no, the second question is not proper. There are two proper questions. The stricter one, for the adjustment for the OS, would be Suppose a player has some misinformation and takes a poor view. The TD and AC decide that, despite the fact that the correct information would have made taking a poor view somewhat less likely, it is not even at all probable that the the player in question would have taken a better view given the correct information. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 23:09:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:09:07 +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 ESMTP id XAA04024 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:09:01 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGk2L-0003Yo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:11:54 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:43:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:43:43 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Have not given much thought to the actual ruling in this case as yet > (though I have been asked to do so by the original appeals committee, > so will be considering the views expressed on the list as part of this > and will no doubt comment later). But a question occurs to me: would > it be legal for us to have an agreement that although we normally play > negative doubles, a double of an overcall by a player whose partner is > silenced is for penalties? > > > ########## Wouldn't this be a derivable conclusion and, therefore, a > matter of common bridge knowledge? ######### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 9 23:09:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:09:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04029 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:09:05 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGk2M-0003Yo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:11:54 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:43:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: bidding box regulations Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:43:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: SNIP > Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference > between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought > and a call that was not "made" in the first place. The difference, I > suppose, is that until a call is "made," it can be changed _even if > there was pause for thought._ That means we really ought to have an > objective criterion for "made" if we can find one. A computer > interface would be ideal but perhaps not practical. > > > ########### Agreed in the acse of Law 25 but in the case of other > Laws, eg. covering revokes and the withdrawl of a claim/concession or > acquiescence in one, an individual's rights will change when the round > has ended or they have made a call on the next board. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 00:52:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:00 +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 ESMTP id AAA06660 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:51:49 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldn-0000S1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:20:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 11:41 AM -0400 9/8/98, David Stevenson wrote: >> What would have happened without the infraction? The AC's view is >>that the pair would have got 200, so there was no damage consequent on >>the MI. >That may be what they meant, but that's not what they said. Further, the >Laws recognize that one cannot know with certainty what would have happened >absent an infraction. That is the reason for the probabalistic tests >specified in Law 12C2. That is also why it is improper for the committee to >judge what would have happened without the infraction in any way other than >by referring to Law 12C2. They do need to pass the Law 40 test before the >Law 12C2 test, but that is to establish that there is a causal link, >however tenuous, between the infraction and the damage. They may judge the >link as so tenuous as to not have been "at all probable" to affect the >result, but they may properly do that only under Law 12C2. No, this is not the correct approach. For L12C2 to apply there has to have been a circumstance to bring it into action, in an MI case damage under L40C is the norm. If there is no damage consequent on the infraction then that ends the matter and L12C2 is never applied. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 00:52:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06674 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:51:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldn-0000S2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:23:37 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> There are two decisions for the TD/AC. >> >> [1] >> >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 >> >> [2] >> >When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a >> result >> >actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for an offending >> > side, the most unfavourable result that was >> >at all probable. >> >> Granted they normally come to the same result, but not always, and >> then we have a "split" score. The words "had the irregularity not >> occurred" do not appear in [2] and occasionally this becomes relevant. >David, while your interpretation seems semantically permissible it is not, >IMO, the way that the majority of people (or even lawyers) would interpret >it. Indeed? It seemed correct to me when it was first pointed out to me. >Rather the actual words are intended to avoid the overly clumsy: > >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, *had the irregularity not occurred*. I do not believe this to be overly clumsy. Furthermore, I would prefer it to say this if this is what it means. >The ** modifier is implicit in the context and need not be repeated. Well, as I say, this is not what it looks like to me. >Consider Game ALL: Dealer W > >W N E S >4S Slow X P 5H >P P 5S P >P P > >5H goes down 4 on best defence but it is judged that any bid other than P >is tainted by UI. Adjusting to 990 seems equitable, adjusting to 1100 >does not (if we believe that W will never redouble). Good example. EW get +990, NS get -1100. >If your interpretation is "official" I do not believe the policy has been >effectively communicated to the playing public. None of my interpretations are official exactly. It is a nice point how "official" my word is when speaking to EBU TDs, where I have often acted as a tutor, and WBU TDs where my word is probably official, since I am their CTD. However, it certainly is not official where the majority of readers here are concerned. It is my view, however, that I have quoted someone else's view that might be deemed official. I certainly expect any competent EBU/WBU TD/AC to rule this way. Grattan has written his own words on another thread which appear to support this interpretation. However, your "effectively communicated to the playing public" intrigues me. How much of anything that we discuss has been? And how should it be done? When we decide how to deal with a false claim in Nimsky Novgorod we do not tell everyone in the world, do we? How much do players want to know the Laws? While we expect players to follow the Laws this is to do with how we work it out, not what they should follow - do the players really need this? Of course, there are some players who are not TDs nor AC members who are interested: several of them read BLML! For that matter I do not suppose that everyone who subscribes to the ABDA's Director's Bulletin is a TD. Anyway, what would be a reasonable way to disseminate this information by making it available while not forcing it down the throat of players with no interest in the Laws? The best way I can think of would be to include it in some publication which purports to be for Directors, is available to everyone, and has a measure of authority because of who publishes it. What comes to mind is the European Bridge League's Director's Guide. So I looked therein: 12.14 In the case of an offending side the requirement is to assess the score which is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". There are two key changes: firstly this result may be obtained either through action in which the irregularity has not occurred, or alternatively through action in which the irregularity does occur. The offending side's path to its poor score may be by either of these routes. Secondly there is a difference between what is "likely" and what (as here) is "at all probable": discard the improbable and consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable for the offending side. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 00:52:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:01 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06662 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:51:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldn-0000Ry-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:09:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >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 > >> > >> Great work. However, the thing that was worrying Grattan, Herman and >> myself is the fact that about a dozen appeals have been written up and >> not published, all written by Herman or me. > >+++ I have brought away with me the original appeal forms of virtually all >or perhaps all of the appeals. Given a day or two I will pass photocopies >to >DWS and he can see if he can make anything of them if he wishes. I have >only just arrived home Tuesday evening. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ It appears that Herman has the matter under control. Well done! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 00:52:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:11 +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 ESMTP id AAA06683 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:01 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldt-0000S1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:53:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809090412.VAA09911@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: >It speaks with little clarity: > >L12C3: ...an appeals committee can vary an assigned adjusted score >in order to do equity. > >WTH does that mean? I've been asking that for a year now, and no >one can tell me. You do tend to ignore answers that you do not agree with. > Does "vary" mean splitting a score? Changing what >the TD assigned? Apportioning scores according to probability? >Ignoring the "likely" and "at all probable" favorable/unfavorable >results language of L12C2? All of those? Yes. > Why not just say, >"...an appeals committee can assign scores in any way it wishes in >order to do equity."? Why not? And there are lots of other Laws where no doubt if you chose the wording it would be different from the current wording, and if I chose it, too. But so what? It is an acceptable usable wording that results in a method that players find fair. >No wonder the ACBL rejected L12C3. Good for them! If they used L12C3 some rulings would be more acceptable to players, and very few would be less. It is perceived as fairer. The wording of L12C3 has been interpreted fairly easily - you have just done it again. None of this seems a good reason for the ACBL not to accept L12C3. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 00:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:14 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06682 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:01 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldt-0000Ry-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:43:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: <199809081902.MAA28541@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: >Surely the thresholds established in L12C2 apply also to L12C3. The thresholds that you refer to are ACBL interpretations not accepted elsewhere. Since the ACBL does not use L12C3 I see no reason for ACBL thresholds to be applied to L12C3 in any jurisdiction. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 00:52:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06663 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:51:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGldn-0000Rz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:40 +0000 Message-ID: <4+oDIABkCo91EwBZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:20:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199809081541.KAA27281@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: >In a duplicate >> game, you apply L91 and disqualify the culprit. Short of that, the >> Laws do not address C&E matters, which means they should be handled >> outside the game, not within the game. > Here's our most serious disagreement. I want there to be an >intermediate step between a warning and a C&E hearing. I think it's >_good_ for the game to use PP's on people who are not exactly deliberately >cheating, and not exactly concerning themselves with the Laws. Some time back the EBU L&EC informed EBU TDs that they were not using L91 sufficiently. Specifically they said that one particular matter that had come before it would have been far better dealt with if the two TDs involved had suspended the players for the rest of the session. Their feeling was that increased use by the TD of his disciplinary powers [DPs, suspension for part of a session, ban from the event] would lead to fewer hearings which was desirable. I agree with this decision. I was not part of it: I was one of the two TDs being castigated. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 00:52:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:18 +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 ESMTP id AAA06693 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:52:06 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGlds-0000ST-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:08:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> >Your partner opens an Acol two spades and righty bids 3S showing some >kind >> >of two-suiter. What's your call with: 1076, 6, AK1098, Q432 ? >> >> 4S. WTP? >+++ Of course I am out of date; that sort of bid used to deny a 1st rd >control >in old, old Acol. While I agree that 2S - 4S denies 1st round control, I doubt that 2S 3S 4S ever did. > But what we need to ask here is what it would mean to >this >partnership. We know what it meant in this partnership - nothing! It was a girl playing with her husband's partner's husband - and they formed up to play in Lille! > ~~ Grattan (Appeals Committees Convenor in Lille) ~~ +++ He kept using Herman and me - need I say more! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 02:13:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:13:22 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07148 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:13:15 +1000 Received: from client8703.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.87.3] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zGmue-0006pg-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:16:08 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddc0d$caef2e00$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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 September 1998 14:43 Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced ++++ I have a letter from Edgar Kaplan in which he argues that a change of method following opponent's infraction is sound strategic thinking, or can be... The subject is susceptible to control by regulation. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 02:54:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:54:22 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07256 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:54:16 +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 JAA12526; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809091656.JAA12526@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:54:24 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Surely the thresholds established in L12C2 apply also to L12C3. > > The thresholds that you refer to are ACBL interpretations not accepted > elsewhere. Since the ACBL does not use L12C3 I see no reason for ACBL > thresholds to be applied to L12C3 in any jurisdiction. > I was referring to the thresholds stated in L12C2, not the necessarily the interpretation of those thresholds by the ACBL LC (which you once characterized as reasonable in an e-mail to me). That is, when considering the use of L12C3 to find a compromise among various "most favorable" and/or "most unfavorable" results, one should not include an unlikely result for the NOS or a highly improbable one for the OS. Is that wrong? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 03:45:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:45:19 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07477 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:45:13 +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 KAA19171 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809091747.KAA19171@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:45:54 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >It speaks with little clarity: > > > >L12C3: ...an appeals committee can vary an assigned adjusted score > >in order to do equity. > > > >WTH does that mean? I've been asking that for a year now, and no > >one can tell me. > > You do tend to ignore answers that you do not agree with. I can't ignore answers that I haven't seen at all. I believe I tend to respond to answers that I don't agree with. Haven't you noticed? > > > Does "vary" mean splitting a score? Changing what > >the TD assigned? Apportioning scores according to probability? > >Ignoring the "likely" and "at all probable" favorable/unfavorable > >results language of L12C2? All of those? > > Yes. Ah, finally an answer. Haven't seen that before, maybe I've been blind. So an AC can include results that have only a 5% probability? That's interesting, since L12C3 does not say the "variance" of an assigned score can ignore the language of L12C2. And "vary an assigned score" does not necessarily mean one already assigned, but has the meaning "vary a score when assigning a result." Okay, fine, thank you. Now, Grattan, do you go along with this? I mean, as a private opinion, do you find it acceptable? > > > Why not just say, > >"...an appeals committee can assign scores in any way it wishes in > >order to do equity."? > > Why not? And there are lots of other Laws where no doubt if you chose > the wording it would be different from the current wording, and if I > chose it, too. But so what? It is an acceptable usable wording that > results in a method that players find fair. I have never found anyone outside of BLML who can explain the meaning of L12C3. If it's "an acceptable usable wording," that should not be true. Most say something like, "It obviously says an AC can change a TD's assigned score if they think it's not equitable. What's the problem?" The problem is that it means a lot more than that. > >No wonder the ACBL rejected L12C3. Good for them! > > If they used L12C3 some rulings would be more acceptable to players, > and very few would be less. It is perceived as fairer. The wording of > L12C3 has been interpreted fairly easily - you have just done it again. > None of this seems a good reason for the ACBL not to accept L12C3. > Maybe they were afraid no one would understand it. I have a genius friend, prominent bridge writer, experienced AC member, and professional player, who is not on the internet. I doubt that he knows how L12C3 is applied where it is in force, as he has no reason to know. I am sending him a request to look at L12C3 and tell me what it means. The reply should be interesting. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 05:15:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:15:27 +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 FAA07916 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:15:17 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h10.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id XAA07769; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:18:09 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 23:18:13 -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: Lille_Open_Pairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="LILLPAIR.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="LILLPAIR.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sorry but once more I am going to ask not pleasant questions. The Lille's championship was over - congratulations to organisers, winners (all of them)? players, TDs etc. - all of us. But would anybody to confirm (or deny) that follows: 1. Is it true that first session of the Open Pairs Final was almost destroyed (there were pairs that played less than 40% of the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the boards)? 2. Is that true that USA's pair met during 1-st session? (IMO - absolutely right decision). And is it true that pairs from another country met during last session? (IMO - absolutely wrong decision) 3. Is it true that during last session there were very strange biddings and card playings? And is it true that these strange happenings provided to rather non-ordinary results at these tables? 4. Is it true that nobody was in charge (in case that there are only positive answers to my questions)? A most of us were not in Lille, these facts were not described at the Bulletin. And I guess that TD's group has rights to get to know what and why really happened. It may be useful in their club job too. For example - how not to provide tournament. Sorry for harsh words. But I was surprised by some Appeal decisions and incidents. And it is surprising for me that I will not be surprised if there may be four positive answer. Vitold P.S. In several thread we had discussion where term "LA" was used. There were quoted ACBL definition of the term. Nobody quoted WBFLC or EBL definition (just criticised ACBL). I did not find them at corresponding sites - cause I am too grey-minded, sorry. Now I have probably last chance: David (DWS), you know almost everything - I am not joking:) . Be so kind as to help me in the problem, Thank you in advance. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 07:46:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:46:52 +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 HAA08285 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:46:45 +1000 Received: from ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.15]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980909214933.LPLQ8705.fep4@ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:49:33 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 23:49:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35faf78c.7608139@post12.tele.dk> References: <001601bddb86$96012540$df3563c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <001601bddb86$96012540$df3563c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:12:51 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >It is pretty much inconceivable that this auction: > >S W N E > P P >1D 1S X XX >P P 3D > >shows three-card diamond support, whatever South might have told West. >No one in the civilised world would bid like that, and the AC may very >well have taken the view that West was a good enough player to know >this. On the other hand, if W is a good enough player to assume that NS is not playing the system that S tells him they are playing, and bids accordingly, and it then turns out that NS actually _are_ playing the system described, what should W do? Claim to have been damaged by unexpected correct information? But nobody are such fools as to play this showing 3-card diamond support, you may say. The answer to that is that S is definitely enough of a fool to believe he is playing it that way, so it is a reasonable assumption that N might also play it that way. And the laws do not forbid players to have agreements that "no one in the civilised world" would have. I do not believe that we should require a non-offending player to know his offending opponents' system better than the opponents themselves. >Now, it may very well be that the world is unprepared for my view that >a player cannot claim to have been damaged by MI if it can be shown >that he knew perfectly well that MI was what he was being given. If he really knew perfectly well, for instance because he has recently discussed this sequence with his opponents who happen to be close friends of his, then I certainly agree. But if he has no other way of knowing that he has MI than the fact that the opponents' system sounds strange/bad/unusual, then he has to believe the opponents, because he will get no redress if he does not and the explanation was correct. >However, we in England admit the truth of this to some extent: if you >claim that you'd have doubled (1N) P (2C) for a club lead, but for the >fact that no one alerted so you did not know it was Stayman, a short >pier will be recommended to you as the venue for a long walk. Agreed. But if you ask about 2C and you are told that it is natural, then you are allowed to assume that it is not Stayman. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 08:28:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:28:47 +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 ESMTP id IAA08370 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:28:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGsm0-0001WJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:31:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:02:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809091747.KAA19171@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 have never found anyone outside of BLML who can explain the >meaning of L12C3. If it's "an acceptable usable wording," that >should not be true. Most say something like, "It obviously says an >AC can change a TD's assigned score if they think it's not >equitable. What's the problem?" The problem is that it means a lot >more than that. Why are you so against allowing experience to affect things? I don't say that L12C3 is good because it is obviously perfect from its clear and concise wording: I just say that it woks. Amongst your people that you have asked outside BLML to explain L12C3 how many have been playing in jurisdictions where it applies? >Maybe they were afraid no one would understand it. I have a genius >friend, prominent bridge writer, experienced AC member, and >professional player, who is not on the internet. I doubt that he >knows how L12C3 is applied where it is in force, as he has no >reason to know. I am sending him a request to look at L12C3 and >tell me what it means. The reply should be interesting. Don't forget to ask him to try it in practice before he comments. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 08:28:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:28:59 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08376 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:28:50 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGsm3-0001Wf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:31:40 +0000 Message-ID: <2KMAFJC3+s91EwCv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:57:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: <199809091656.JAA12526@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: >David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Surely the thresholds established in L12C2 apply also to L12C3. >> >> The thresholds that you refer to are ACBL interpretations not >accepted >> elsewhere. Since the ACBL does not use L12C3 I see no reason for >ACBL >> thresholds to be applied to L12C3 in any jurisdiction. >> >I was referring to the thresholds stated in L12C2, not the >necessarily the interpretation of those thresholds by the ACBL LC >(which you once characterized as reasonable in an e-mail to me). > >That is, when considering the use of L12C3 to find a compromise >among various "most favorable" and/or "most unfavorable" results, >one should not include an unlikely result for the NOS or a highly >improbable one for the OS. > >Is that wrong? Sorry, I see what you mean. The Law does not require them, so should we necessarily? I am happy that L12C3 allows commonsense without too many constraints. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 09:17:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:17:27 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08509 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:17:21 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:17:47 -0700 Message-ID: <35F70D2B.D1B46FBC@home.com> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 16:20:11 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: <199809081712.NAA25509@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <35F65117.295EF1B8@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > To me it's as simple as > > > > Was there MI? If yes, was there an increased chance of the NOS > > "doing the right thing". If yes, adjust. > > > > You are right, provided you put a "significantly" before increased. But the problem doing this is that you enter yet another subjective and grey area, namely the definition of "significant". We should avoid adding even more such subjectiveness than already exists. My argument is that a very liberal interpretation of L40C (such as Ron Johnson's above) is sensible since there is a mechanism in L12C to split scores, compare likelyhood and probability of different outcomes etc, i.e. to provide equity. L12C might lead a TD/AC to not adjust NOS's score if indeed the "significance" threshhold built into 12C is not met. If the law-makers wanted us to apply all those tests already in L40C, and to have L12 merely stating the "penalty", why isn't it L40C that has a complex language with "at all probable", "likely" etc and L12C that is a one-liner, rather than the other way around?? I conclude that the very complexity and flexibility present in L12C implies that one should be very liberal in "passing cases" from L40C to L12. Since this interpretation also happens to make the job of TD/AC simpler, why not adopt it? Why assume that the law-makers intended to drive us crazy? :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 09:50:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:50:51 +1000 Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08546 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:50:44 +1000 Received: from ts18-12.ott.istar.ca (default) [198.53.6.187] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0zGu3M-0005Cp-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:53:37 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:53:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs In-Reply-To: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:18 09-09-98 -0700, you wrote: > Hi all:) > > Sorry but once more I am going to ask not pleasant >questions. The Lille's championship was over - congratulations >to organisers, winners (all of them)? players, TDs etc. - all of us. > > But would anybody to confirm (or deny) that follows: > > 1. Is it true that first session of the Open Pairs Final was >almost destroyed (there were pairs that played less than 40% of >the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the >boards)? I am not sure what percent of the boards had been played by each pair, but there was a major problem in the 1st and 5th (last) sessions. Going into the last round, it was unclear who was going to be playing on Vu-graph. > 2. Is that true that USA's pair met during 1-st session? >(IMO - absolutely right decision). And is it true that pairs from >another country met during last session? (IMO - absolutely >wrong decision) I am almost sure that Polish (and perhaps Dutch) pairs played each other on VuGraph in the last session. As both pairs were in contention, there cannot be any question as to the legitimacy of the results. One of the major problems was that a Venezuelan pair could not continue in the event. Hamoui's partner (sorry I cannot remember the name, but he is very well known) had a problem with kidney stones. This caused a sitout for each pair in the last 5 final sessions. Why the movement got so screwed up twice is mind-boggling - I heard something about the sheets produced for the movement and given to the pairs were incorrevt (I assume they were playing some sort of scambled Mitchell). > 3. Is it true that during last session there were very strange >biddings and card playings? And is it true that these strange >happenings provided to rather non-ordinary results at these tables? Not on Vu-graph. In the last round a Spanish pair were playing against the eventual winners and went for a large number (1100 or 1400 against a part score). The Poles earned their pickup on this board as over a strong NT, one of them bid 2C (for the majors?) with approximately AKTxx xxxx xxxx -. His opponent then made a forcing (?) 3C call with good shape, and about 6 HCP. They got too high and with the foul breaks, and perhaps a misunderstanding, they went for "sticks and wheels". > 4. Is it true that nobody was in charge (in case that there >are only positive answers to my questions)? > Mr Damiani, during the victory banquet, apologized and laid the blame squarely upon his own shoulders. It is beyond me to understand, however, how the movement could get so screwed up - especially at this level and importance of competition. I was talking later that day to one of the members of the WBF executive and he was not pleased (to put it mildly) with this scenario. I can only assume the IOC would look upon an organization which cannot even properly run its own world championships with some disdain. I certainly hope this is not the case however. There is one incident which I believe to be of much more importance which was not reported. My partner and I went to the press room at approximately 10:10 on Friday just after the final session of the Open Pairs had started. (BTW - I cannot say enough good things about Mark Newton and the wonderful job he did, and the fact that everyone had Internet access while in Lille, regardless of their status with the IBPA.) As soon as we walked in, one of my teammates in the Rosenblum came over to my partner (president of the CBF) and me with a hand record from that session. He had found it just outside the Vu-graph room and was wondering what to do. I thank God that the person who found it is utterly ethical. Another scandal at the World Championships is not what bridge needs at this time (or any time for that matter). Althoug I was not privy to much of what actually happened during the last session (Barry Rigal was sent to find out, but I believe he was unable to come up with a definitive answer), I hope that I may have enlightened you with the view from afar. Dave Kent From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 10:53:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:53:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08704 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:53:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zGv1s-0003Yq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:56:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:32:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs In-Reply-To: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > P.S. In several thread we had discussion where term "LA" >was used. There were quoted ACBL definition of the term. Nobody >quoted WBFLC or EBL definition (just criticised ACBL). I did not >find them at corresponding sites - cause I am too grey-minded, sorry. > Now I have probably last chance: David (DWS), you know >almost everything - I am not joking:) . Be so kind as to help me in >the problem, Thank you in advance. I am quite interested, and not sure of the answers. Still, my impression is that there are roughly speaking the following definitions of an LA. ACBL, Netherlands: An action that would be at least considered seriously by a number of players of like ability. Australia, NZ, South Africa, most European countries: An action that would be taken by at least one in four of players of like ability. England, Wales, Scotland: An action that would be taken by at least three in ten of players of like ability. Denmark, Europe, World: An action that would appear to be a logical alternative action. If we could come to some consensus about these definitions then I would summarise them in a little article and put it on my Bridgepage. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 18:41:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:41:18 +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 SAA09281 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:41:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA11033 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:43:35 +0200 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:43:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, David Kent wrote: > At 23:18 09-09-98 -0700, you wrote: Since we have the operation's director on this group: Ton, how about doing a BLML version of the article you're surely going to write for the Dutch WEKO-wijzer (newsletter for Dutch TD's)? > One of the major problems was that a Venezuelan pair could not continue > in the event. Hamoui's partner (sorry I cannot remember the name, but > he is very well known) had a problem with kidney stones. This caused a > sitout for each pair in the last 5 final sessions. That is Claudio Caponi. Why a sit-out caused any problem, is beyond me though. > Why the movement got so screwed up twice is mind-boggling - I heard > something about the sheets produced for the movement and given to the > pairs were incorrevt (I assume they were playing some sort of scambled > Mitchell). 72 pairs seems like an unlucky number for a 5 session event. 66 or 76 would have been much easier: make 5 groups of 13(15) pairs. In each session 4 of the 13(15) groups play a regular Mitchell while the 5th group plus the remaining pair play a Howell. After 5 sessions, all pairs have met eachother. BTW. Does anybody still remember what happened at the previous Olympiad in France? In the final session of the '82 event in Biarritz, a player in the Women's section accidentally was put in the EW direction instead of getting a stationary NS seat. The senior TD solved this by swapping NS and EW in the women's section, then told that to the computer staff in the results room. However, the computer staff swapped NS and EW in the OPEN section. The result was that Maas-Rebattu thought that they were world champions for approximately half an hour until somebody realized that the results were completely wrong. You'd have hoped that they had learned something from that disaster. 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 Thu Sep 10 18:42:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:42:02 +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 SAA09298 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:41:55 +1000 Received: from modem27.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.27] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zH2LT-0007yX-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:44:51 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:35:59 +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) > While I agree that 2S - 4S denies 1st round control, I doubt that 2S > 3S 4S ever did.> ++++ Going to argue with me about what we did in the 1950's ? Just unthinkable to merely bid 4S with a first round control at any decent level of play and crazy with AK plus a singleton at any time.++++ > He kept using Herman and me - need I say more! ++++ They were always hanging around when I needed to make up a fivesome, foursome, or split them between two threesomes - and could be relied upon to spin some words about it afterwards..... ballast.... that's my excuse anyway....(((-: ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 18:42:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:42:04 +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 SAA09300 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:41:58 +1000 Received: from modem27.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.27] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zH2LU-0007yX-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:44:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:43:37 +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 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille > Date: 09 September 1998 18:45 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >It speaks with little clarity:> > > > > Yes. > > Ah, finally an answer. Haven't seen that before, maybe I've been > blind. So an AC can include results that have only a 5% > probability? That's interesting, since L12C3 does not say the > "variance" of an assigned score can ignore the language of L12C2. > And "vary an assigned score" does not necessarily mean one already > assigned, but has the meaning "vary a score when assigning a > result." Okay, fine, thank you. > > Now, Grattan, do you go along with this? I mean, as a private > opinion, do you find it acceptable?> > > +++ My objective is to create powers in the wake of an infraction which enable players to receive the fairest outcome from the problem that can be achieved. So I repeat, with apologies to those who can read, that 12C3 intends total freedom to ACs to do what they consider most nearly achieves this objective. In my personal opinion there are many TDs who could exercise this judgement quite well in making rulings of first instance and I did and do argue the case for extension of the power to TDs earmarked by their NBOs as qualified to use it. In my judgement they would include people like Bill Schoder, Max Bavin, Antonio Riccardi, Sol Weinstein, Claude Dadoun, and, yes, David Stevenson. I note Marvin's quibble about the wording. Following a ruling 'score stands' one has to be able to conceive that the table result is then 'assigned' or something like that - but since we are reasonably intelligent human beings I think we can live with the words as they are, and understand what is meant. Actually I would say Denis Howard came up with something concise to serve the purpose. In EBL and WBF territory I have seen all kinds of variations in using this power; most recently in Lille. So, Marv, please do not consider it a freak that, having fought for such powers since the early 1980's, I happen to agree with the law as it stands and would only change it to extend the powers. I have no trouble in accepting that my opinion will not be shared universally but there is a lot of support for it. 12C2 can work in a quirky and extreme way at times and is far from ideal; indeed I believe my objective is not attainable in written law alone but needs the admixture of bridge judgement from someone capable of making it. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 19:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:41:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA09409 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:41:47 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zH3HN-0004D6-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:44:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:43:29 +0100 To: Grattan Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Appeal 23 from bulletin 13 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Grattan writes >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) > > > While I agree that 2S - 4S denies 1st round control, I doubt >that 2S >> 3S 4S ever did.> > >++++ Going to argue with me about what we did in the 1950's ? >Just unthinkable to merely bid 4S with a first round control at any >decent level of play and crazy with AK plus a singleton at any >time.++++ > > For what it's worth I find the 4S bid mind-blowingly wrong - as others have suggested P then 4S would suggest a better hand although I doubt it suggest as good a hand as I have here - one player I gave the hand to made thought it worth two slam tries, another here suggested the "Landy slam-try" (bid slam and then try to make it) and frankly i don't think that bidding 6S here is completely absurd - in my humble opinion 4D seems an obvious call - shows some Diamonds and suggests a good hand - I'd bid 4S without the A of D and the Q of C mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 20:15:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:15:26 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09468 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:15:13 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-135.access.net.il [192.116.204.135]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA27294; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:17:48 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35F7A731.DE62C406@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:17:21 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First - brilliant coup by South...... But ...... Analysis I don't think his 1H bid is a question of ~psyche~ , it is a very simple UI !!!! I believe that in ~normal~ continuation , south can never tell N he is void in Heart ........... Bidding 1H , KNOWING !! (it is stronger than "could have known") his partner is now ~safe~ of bidding 5H or even Gorgeous Sacrifice at 6 H ...hmmmm...I believe that this is a very good bid from North ...( expected 1-2 down against 6D cold .......). And more : I believe than the ~normal~ play now is K club to set the contract (considering south's shortness in club) North will return H , to save genius' Ace of heart , from declarer's ruff (when H King off-side )..anyway because the UI which couldn't be available to North without the "accident" of BOOR.! Please PAY ATTENTION to the beginning of L75A5 - ..."subject to Law16C2..." .. Here , north had another demonstrable LA (as pointed in L16C2). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I should adjust the score because UI , not because of psyche. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And more - IMHO there is no doubt that South KNEW (stronger than could have known - as written in L75B1...)that that irregularity would give him a huge advantage if he bids now 1H , damaging NOS being protected against a damage of 5-6H doubled ,when not sure opponents will bid the slam . I am sure that wouldn't apply L75B2 , because the irregularity wasn't intentional (I believe it.....) but L75B1 would apply , in spite of the dubious dilemma : L75A5 allows OS to choose any action after irregularity occurred , but SUBJECT TO L16C2 ......., while L75B2 allows TD to adjust score , when OS "could have known at his irregularity.... " , but not after it occurred , that there will be a damage for NOS. Dany 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 > > 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 Thu Sep 10 21:15:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:15:30 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09612 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:15:24 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-231.uunet.be [194.7.13.231]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09104 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F79E28.6943D8B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:38:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809081712.NAA25509@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <35F65117.295EF1B8@village.uunet.be> <35F70D2B.D1B46FBC@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > To me it's as simple as > > > > > > Was there MI? If yes, was there an increased chance of the NOS > > > "doing the right thing". If yes, adjust. > > > > > > > You are right, provided you put a "significantly" before increased. > > But the problem doing this is that you enter yet another subjective and > grey area, namely the definition of "significant". We should avoid > adding even more such subjectiveness than already exists. > Yes we should, but Ron was not writing Law, he was writing a one-liner. I found that his one-liner was incorrect, so I attempted to change it to a more correct one, and I succeeded in doing this by adding just one word. I realise that this creates a new interpretational problem, but then the Laws are not easy! We should not be tempted into making wrong decisions, simply because they can be more easily captured into one-liners. I firmly believe that a case like Adam Wildavsky's in Appeal 26 is correctly dealt with in saying "no consequent damage", even though it does fall under Ron's interpretation as stated above. That is why Ron's sentence above needs to be adjusted. All IMHO of course. > My argument is that a very liberal interpretation of L40C (such as Ron > Johnson's above) is sensible since there is a mechanism in L12C to split > scores, compare likelyhood and probability of different outcomes etc, > i.e. to provide equity. L12C might lead a TD/AC to not adjust NOS's > score if indeed the "significance" threshhold built into 12C is not met. > I agree there is another way of dealing with this kind of problem: We could state that given that the increased probablility of finding the successful line is, say, 1%, we could give an L12C3 score of 99% no change, 1% change. That way ahead lies madness. Far better to let the AC decide that a particular case falls below some "treshold" and leave it at that. > If the law-makers wanted us to apply all those tests already in L40C, > and to have L12 merely stating the "penalty", why isn't it L40C that has > a complex language with "at all probable", "likely" etc and L12C that is > a one-liner, rather than the other way around?? > L40C has : "if the director decides that a side has been damaged..." The interpretation is that a small probability enhancement does not constitute "damage". > I conclude that the very complexity and flexibility present in L12C > implies that one should be very liberal in "passing cases" from L40C to > L12. Since this interpretation also happens to make the job of TD/AC > simpler, why not adopt it? Why assume that the law-makers intended to > drive us crazy? :-)) Because they did ? :-))) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 21:49:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:49:18 +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 ESMTP id VAA09666 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:49:10 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zH5Gc-0000mo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:52:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:30:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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 > >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 ? Having had a word with a well respected reader of BLML offline I have revised my position slightly [*]. [*] This means I have now got the opposite view! What is wrong with the scenario presented? That it leads to a peculiar form of abuse. Suppose when you psyche next on a 2-count you could silence partner? Yes, that would be beneficial! The odds are better with a silenced partner. Admittedly you will hear some *very* heavy breathing as he passes throughout with his 21-count. At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 21:49:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:49:18 +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 ESMTP id VAA09667 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:49:11 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zH5Ge-0000nc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:52:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:44:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: <01bddb8b$e5fad500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Will someone please explain, what are the preconditions required for a >players actions to be deemed a "field"? If a player makes a call or play which is one that appears to allow for the possibility of a psyche, and partner has psyched, then the psyche has been fielded, ie there is a breach of L40A. According to EBU regulations and interpretations and recommendations the following applies: The intention of the fielder is not considered. If he makes a call or play which is the same as an unethical player would make to protect his partner then it is fielded even though he may not have meant that. A fielded psyche is called a Red psyche. The result on the board is cancelled unless the NOs got >60% in which case the table result stands. Otherwise the board is scored as 60/30 or the equivalent. There should be no other sensible reason for the action taken. If there is any doubt then it is called an Amber psyche. No adjustment is given unless the pair has another Amber or Red psyche within a shortish period in which case they all become Red psyches. If a psyche is not fielded [and there is no doubt] then it is a Green psyche. Records are kept of all Red and Amber psyches, and a reasonable proportion of Green psyches, so that the relevant authorities can check for other problems. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 10 22:55:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:55:08 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09909 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:55:02 +1000 Received: from client0873.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.115] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zH6IF-0000Ur-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:57:47 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:59:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddcba$df434f00$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 >Vitold wrote: > > David wrote > I am quite interested, and not sure of the answers. Still, my >impression is that there are roughly speaking the following definitions >of an LA. > >Denmark, Europe, World: An action that would appear to be a logical >alternative action. > > If we could come to some consensus about these definitions then I >would summarise them in a little article and put it on my Bridgepage. ++++ The WBFLC wrote words to be interpreted according to the meaning of the English Language. 'alternative' = presenting a possible choice 'logical' = characterized by valid reasoning The device of percentages offered to TDs are crutches presented by ZOs, NBOs, etc. to help the TDs measure their tread to the effects of the language. ## Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 23:30:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:30:29 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10011 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:30:21 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id JAA26914; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:33:07 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:20 AM -0400 9/9/98, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>At 11:41 AM -0400 9/8/98, David Stevenson wrote: > >>>What would have happened without the infraction? The AC's view is >>>that the pair would have got 200, so there was no damage consequent on >>>the MI. > >>That may be what they meant, but that's not what they said. Further, the >>Laws recognize that one cannot know with certainty what would have happened >>absent an infraction. That is the reason for the probabalistic tests >>specified in Law 12C2. That is also why it is improper for the committee to >>judge what would have happened without the infraction in any way other than >>by referring to Law 12C2. They do need to pass the Law 40 test before the >>Law 12C2 test, but that is to establish that there is a causal link, >>however tenuous, between the infraction and the damage. They may judge the >>link as so tenuous as to not have been "at all probable" to affect the >>result, but they may properly do that only under Law 12C2. > >No, this is not the correct approach. For L12C2 to apply there has to >have been a circumstance to bring it into action, in an MI case damage >under L40C is the norm. If there is no damage consequent on the >infraction then that ends the matter and L12C2 is never applied. I agree, Law 40 means that there must be damage consequent on the infraction in order to proceed to Law 12C2. I do not agree that one can or should determine this by asking "What would have happened without the infraction?". The appropriate question to ask is "Would the correct information have made a successful alternative seem more attractive to the NOS?". Under your reasoning I can't understand how an "at all probable" adjustment for the OS would ever be made under 12C2. "What would have happened without the infraction?" is a question that is explicitly asked under Law 12C2, with guidance for evaluating the implicit probabalistic component. The same question cannot be asked under Law 40 as well. AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 23:34:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:34:02 +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 XAA10056 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:33:56 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26640 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980910093609.007f6250@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:36:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: References: <01bddb8b$e5fad500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 9/10/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > There should be no other sensible reason for the action taken. If >there is any doubt then it is called an Amber psyche. No adjustment is >given unless the pair has another Amber or Red psyche within a shortish >period in which case they all become Red psyches. Can you give some examples of possible fielding that would result in designation of an Amber psyche? Take the case from Lille when responder made no move for slam after and ACOL two bid despite holding three trumps, a singleton and AKQxx in a side suit. Would the opening bid in this case be declared an Amber psyche? (Suppose the opening bidder admitted to intentionally misrepresenting his hand.) Is bad bridge a 'sensible reason?' (I am not calling the non-slam try bad bridge. I am simply using that as an example of a case where opinions differ such that the designation of Amber psyche may be applied by some and not by others.) Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 10 23:53:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:53:43 +1000 Received: from stormy.ibl.bm (stormy.ibl.bm [199.172.192.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10132 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:53:18 +1000 Received: from [199.172.253.44] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:55:50 -0400 Date: 10 Sep 98 10:57:23 +0000 From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs To: "bridge-laws" , David Kent X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.3b3 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="====52504850514950534852===1" Message-ID: <19980910145550.AAA20554@stormy.ibl.bm@[199.172.253.44]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --====52504850514950534852===1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Reply to: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs I can tell you that the movement used for the 5 session final of the Open = Pairs was a 36 table Howell movement that was computer generated. *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Pager: 299-7794 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** David Kent wrote: >At 23:18 09-09-98 -0700, you wrote: >> Hi all:) >> >> Sorry but once more I am going to ask not pleasant = >>questions. The Lille's championship was over - congratulations = >>to organisers, winners (all of them)? players, TDs etc. - all of us. >> >> But would anybody to confirm (or deny) that follows: >> >> 1. Is it true that first session of the Open Pairs Final was = >>almost destroyed (there were pairs that played less than 40% of = >>the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the = >>boards)? > >I am not sure what percent of the boards had been played by each pair, = but >there was a major problem in the 1st and 5th (last) sessions. Going into >the last round, it was unclear who was going to be playing on Vu-graph. > > >> 2. Is that true that USA's pair met during 1-st session? = >>(IMO - absolutely right decision). And is it true that pairs from = >>another country met during last session? (IMO - absolutely = >>wrong decision) > >I am almost sure that Polish (and perhaps Dutch) pairs played each other = on >VuGraph in the last session. As both pairs were in contention, there >cannot be any question as to the legitimacy of the results. One of the >major problems was that a Venezuelan pair could not continue in the event.= >Hamoui's partner (sorry I cannot remember the name, but he is very well >known) had a problem with kidney stones. This caused a sitout for each >pair in the last 5 final sessions. Why the movement got so screwed up >twice is mind-boggling - I heard something about the sheets produced for >the movement and given to the pairs were incorrevt (I assume they were >playing some sort of scambled Mitchell). > >> 3. Is it true that during last session there were very strange = >>biddings and card playings? And is it true that these strange = >>happenings provided to rather non-ordinary results at these tables? > >Not on Vu-graph. In the last round a Spanish pair were playing against = the >eventual winners and went for a large number (1100 or 1400 against a part >score). The Poles earned their pickup on this board as over a strong NT, >one of them bid 2C (for the majors?) with approximately AKTxx xxxx xxxx -.= >His opponent then made a forcing (?) 3C call with good shape, and about 6 >HCP. They got too high and with the foul breaks, and perhaps a >misunderstanding, they went for "sticks and wheels". > >> 4. Is it true that nobody was in charge (in case that there = >>are only positive answers to my questions)? >> > >Mr Damiani, during the victory banquet, apologized and laid the blame >squarely upon his own shoulders. It is beyond me to understand, however, >how the movement could get so screwed up - especially at this level and >importance of competition. I was talking later that day to one of the >members of the WBF executive and he was not pleased (to put it mildly) = with >this scenario. I can only assume the IOC would look upon an organization >which cannot even properly run its own world championships with some >disdain. I certainly hope this is not the case however. > >There is one incident which I believe to be of much more importance which >was not reported. My partner and I went to the press room at = approximately >10:10 on Friday just after the final session of the Open Pairs had = started. > (BTW - I cannot say enough good things about Mark Newton and the = wonderful >job he did, and the fact that everyone had Internet access while in Lille,= >regardless of their status with the IBPA.) As soon as we walked in, one = of >my teammates in the Rosenblum came over to my partner (president of the >CBF) and me with a hand record from that session. He had found it just >outside the Vu-graph room and was wondering what to do. I thank God that >the person who found it is utterly ethical. Another scandal at the World >Championships is not what bridge needs at this time (or any time for that >matter). > >Althoug I was not privy to much of what actually happened during the last >session (Barry Rigal was sent to find out, but I believe he was unable to >come up with a definitive answer), I hope that I may have enlightened you >with the view from afar. > > >Dave Kent > > > > >RFC822 header >----------------------------------- > > Return-Path: > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by stormy.ibl.bm > (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35)= > with SMTP id bm for ; > Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:54:36 -0400 > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) = id = >JAA08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:50:51 +1000 > Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by = >octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08546 for = >; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:50:44 +1000 > Received: from ts18-12.ott.istar.ca (default) [198.53.6.187] = > by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) > id 0zGu3M-0005Cp-00; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:53:37 -0400 > Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com> > X-Sender: david@magi.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) > Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:53:17 -0400 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Kent > Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs > In-Reply-To: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > --====52504850514950534852===1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
         Reply to:   Re: Lille_Open_Pairs
I can tell you that the movement = used for the 5 session final of the Open = Pairs was a 36 table Howell movement that = was computer generated.

***************************************************************

= ##### # # ####### = #
# # ### = # ### ### ####
= # # # # # # # ##### = # # #
# # # # # = # # # # # #
= ##### # ### # # ### = ### # #
#
= ##

Voice: (441) = 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Pager: 299-7794
= Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282
***************************************************************<= FONT = FACE=3D"Geneva" SIZE=3D3 COLOR=3D"#000000">

David Kent wrote:
>At 23:18 09-09-98 = -0700, you wrote:
>> Hi all:)
>>
>> Sorry = but once more I am going to ask not pleasant =
>>questions. The Lille's championship = was over - congratulations
>>to = organisers, winners (all of them)? players, = TDs etc. - all of us.
>>
>> But = would anybody to confirm (or deny) that = follows:
>>
>> 1. Is it true = that first session of the Open Pairs Final = was
>>almost destroyed (there were = pairs that played less than 40% of
>>the = boards, and a most of pairs played no more = than 80% of the
>>boards)?
>
>I = am not sure what percent of the boards had = been played by each pair, but
>there = was a major problem in the 1st and 5th (last) = sessions. Going into
>the last round, = it was unclear who was going to be playing = on Vu-graph.
>
>
>> 2. = Is that true that USA's pair met during = 1-st session?
>>(IMO - absolutely = right decision). And is it true that pairs = from
>>another country met during = last session? (IMO - absolutely
>>wrong = decision)
>
>I am almost sure = that Polish (and perhaps Dutch) pairs played = each other on
>VuGraph in the last = session. As both pairs were in contention, = there
>cannot be any question as to = the legitimacy of the results. One of the
>major = problems was that a Venezuelan pair could = not continue in the event.
>Hamoui's = partner (sorry I cannot remember the name, = but he is very well
>known) had a problem = with kidney stones. This caused a sitout = for each
>pair in the last 5 final = sessions. Why the movement got so screwed = up
>twice is mind-boggling - I heard = something about the sheets produced for
>the = movement and given to the pairs were incorrevt = (I assume they were
>playing some sort = of scambled Mitchell).
>
>> 3. = Is it true that during last session there = were very strange
>>biddings and = card playings? And is it true that these = strange
>>happenings provided to = rather non-ordinary results at these tables?
>
>Not = on Vu-graph. In the last round a Spanish = pair were playing against the
>eventual = winners and went for a large number (1100 = or 1400 against a part
>score). The = Poles earned their pickup on this board = as over a strong NT,
>one of them bid = 2C (for the majors?) with approximately = AKTxx xxxx xxxx -.
>His opponent then = made a forcing (?) 3C call with good shape, = and about 6
>HCP. They got too high = and with the foul breaks, and perhaps a
>misunderstanding, = they went for "sticks and wheels".
>
>> 4. = Is it true that nobody was in charge (in = case that there
>>are only positive = answers to my questions)?
>>
>
>Mr = Damiani, during the victory banquet, apologized = and laid the blame
>squarely upon his = own shoulders. It is beyond me to understand, = however,
>how the movement could get = so screwed up - especially at this level = and
>importance of competition. I = was talking later that day to one of the
>members = of the WBF executive and he was not pleased = (to put it mildly) with
>this scenario. = I can only assume the IOC would look upon = an organization
>which cannot even = properly run its own world championships = with some
>disdain. I certainly hope = this is not the case however.
>
>There = is one incident which I believe to be of = much more importance which
>was not = reported. My partner and I went to the = press room at approximately
>10:10 on = Friday just after the final session of the = Open Pairs had started.
> (BTW - I = cannot say enough good things about Mark = Newton and the wonderful
>job he did, = and the fact that everyone had Internet = access while in Lille,
>regardless of = their status with the IBPA.) As soon as = we walked in, one of
>my teammates = in the Rosenblum came over to my partner = (president of the
>CBF) and me with = a hand record from that session. He had = found it just
>outside the Vu-graph = room and was wondering what to do. I thank = God that
>the person who found it is = utterly ethical. Another scandal at the = World
>Championships is not what bridge = needs at this time (or any time for that
>matter).
>
>Althoug = I was not privy to much of what actually = happened during the last
>session (Barry = Rigal was sent to find out, but I believe = he was unable to
>come up with a definitive = answer), I hope that I may have enlightened = you
>with the view from afar.
>
>
>Dave = Kent
>
>
>
>
>RFC822 = header
>-----------------------------------
>
> = Return-Path: <<= U>owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>
> Received: = from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) = by stormy.ibl.bm
> (Post.Office = MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35)
> = with SMTP id bm for <jrhind@ibl.bm<= FONT = FACE=3D"Geneva" SIZE=3D1 COLOR=3D"#000000">>;
> = Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:54:36 -0400
> Received: = (from daemon@= localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au = (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
>JAA08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; = Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:50:51 +1000
> Received: = from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) = by
>octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) = with SMTP id JAA08546 for
><bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.= au>; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 = 09:50:44 +1000
> Received: from ts18-12.ott.istar.ca = (default) [198.53.6.187]
> by mail.magi.com = with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5)
> id 0zGu3M-0005Cp-00; = Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:53:37 -0400
> Message-Id: = <3.0.1.32.= 19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com>
> X-Sender: = david@magi.com
> X-Mailer: Windows = Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
> Date: = Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:53:17 -0400
> To: = bridge-laws@= octavia.anu.edu.au
> From: David Kent = <david@magi.= com>
> Subject: Re: = Lille_Open_Pairs
> In-Reply-To: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru>
> Mime-Version: = 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
> = Sender: owner-= bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
> Precedence: bulk
> = --====52504850514950534852===1-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 00:18:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:18:07 +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 AAA12454 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:18:01 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA31950 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA01554 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:21:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:21:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809101421.KAA01554@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I agree there is another way of dealing with this kind of problem: > We could state that given that the increased probablility of finding the > successful line is, say, 1%, we could give an L12C3 score of 99% no > change, 1% change. Or -- as others have been suggesting -- we rule under L12C2 that a better score (for the NOS, i.e. a worse score for the OS) was "not at all probable." Why is this difficult? It seems the obvious and straightforward approach. We don't have to invent any new laws or define any new terms. > Far better to let the AC decide that a particular case falls below some > "treshold" and leave it at that. But then what defines this threshold, if not L12C2? Why assert that something is complicated if there is a simple approach that leads to the result we all agree we want? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 00:23:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:23:18 +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 AAA12487 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:23:12 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA00186 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA01562 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809101426.KAA01562@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > What is wrong with the scenario presented? That it leads to a > peculiar form of abuse. Suppose when you psyche next on a 2-count you > could silence partner? Yes, that would be beneficial! The odds are > better with a silenced partner. Admittedly you will hear some *very* > heavy breathing as he passes throughout with his 21-count. > > At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing > partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the > possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be > silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that > it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. Something is very wrong here -- either the explanation or the conclusion. If David is saying a player could envision that an insufficient bid on one hand could help him on some future hand, that seems quite far fetched and well beyond the intent of L23 or L72B1. If you are worried about the future hand, then adjust the score on that one when -- or if -- it occurs. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 00:26:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:26:04 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12503 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:25:57 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id KAA04820; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com> References: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:28:38 -0400 To: David Kent From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:53 PM -0400 9/9/98, David Kent wrote: >At 23:18 09-09-98 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >> 1. Is it true that first session of the Open Pairs Final was >>almost destroyed (there were pairs that played less than 40% of >>the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the >>boards)? > >I am not sure what percent of the boards had been played by each pair, but >there was a major problem in the 1st and 5th (last) sessions. Going into >the last round, it was unclear who was going to be playing on Vu-graph. ... >Mr Damiani, during the victory banquet, apologized and laid the blame >squarely upon his own shoulders. Thanks for letting us know. This apology did not appear in the copy of his speech (which must have been submitted in advance) that appeared in the final daily bulletin. >It is beyond me to understand, however, >how the movement could get so screwed up - especially at this level and >importance of competition. I can shed some light on this, since I asked one of the head directors about it. I also have some ideas on how the problem could have been avoided - for those I hope you can wait for my article! The movement was, so far as I can tell, a complete 36 table Howell, with two boards per round, to be completed over five sessions. Since the event was scored barometer style the movement of the boards was not an issue. The first problem was that pairs were issued initial table assignments but no individual guide cards. We were thus dependent on the table cards to tell us where to go for the next round. A minor problem with this was that if you left the room early you had to remember either where you'd come from or where you were to go to! The second problem was that the pairs were not issued pair numbers. A director immediately found fault with this, reasoning that it would be difficult to determine whether a pair had sat in the right direction, but nothing was done about it. I don't know whether pairs ever did sit in the wrong direction, but I do know that several incorrect scores were posted for my pair, which we had the scorers correct later. In one case we were scored with a sitout for a round we had played! The third problem, the one with the most serious consequences, was that the guide cards on two of the tables were incorrect. These cards had been custom made for this event. While they clearly were printed on a computer my guess is that they were constructed manually by someone working from a chart of the movement, rather than by writing a program for the purpose. Unfortunately the two mistakes were complementary, in that they did not result in two pairs being sent to the same table in the same direction. If they had the problem would have been noticed at the beginning of the second round. Instead it was only noticed the first time two pairs who had already played were matched against one another. I do not know what the problem was during the fifth session. My guess is that it was not a new problem, just a consequence of the problem in the first session, manifesting this time at the other end of the movement. If anyone can confirm or deny this I'd appreciate it. AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 00:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:27:06 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12519 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:26:59 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id KAA05008; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:29:41 -0400 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:18 AM -0400 9/10/98, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > 1. Is it true that first session of the Open Pairs Final was >almost destroyed (there were pairs that played less than 40% of >the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the >boards)? It's true that many pairs were matched against one another twice. As a result my partner and I had four sitouts the first session, so that we played 20 of the 28 boards. > 2. Is that true that USA's pair met during 1-st session? >(IMO - absolutely right decision). And is it true that pairs from >another country met during last session? (IMO - absolutely >wrong decision) We played against six other US pairs the first session. Looking at the draw sheet I expect this was intentional, and that we'd have played against more during the rounds we sat out. It looks as though the French pairs were also matched against one another early. The French (12 pairs) and US (18 pairs) contingents were by far the largest. I doubt the movement could have been arranged so that no one played against a countryman during the last round. > 3. Is it true that during last session there were very strange >biddings and card playings? And is it true that these strange >happenings provided to rather non-ordinary results at these tables? I assure you there have been very strange biddings and card playings in every pair game I can remember participating in, and I've been playing for 20 years! I suspect you mean to imply something more specific. > 4. Is it true that nobody was in charge (in case that there >are only positive answers to my questions)? This sounds like a rhetorical question, so I won't attempt to answer. I had wondered the same thing. I find that fixing of authority and responsibility is a problem in many non-profit organizations, not just in the WBF. > A most of us were not in Lille, these facts were not described >at the Bulletin. I for one was surprised that they were not. AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 00:28:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:28:44 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12534 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:28:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA32108 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA01581 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:31:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809101431.KAA01581@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > I don't think his 1H bid is a question of ~psyche~ , it is > a very simple UI !!!! What is the UI? The fact that partner must pass is AI to all players. (Otherwise, the usual remedies such as bidding 3NT or passing strong hands would be illegal.) Was there something else I missed? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 01:16:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:16:28 +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 BAA12716 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:16:21 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA04322 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980910111836.007f6940@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:18:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:33 AM 9/10/98 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I agree, Law 40 means that there must be damage consequent on the >infraction in order to proceed to Law 12C2. I do not agree that one can or >should determine this by asking "What would have happened without the >infraction?". The appropriate question to ask is "Would the correct >information have made a successful alternative seem more attractive to the >NOS?". Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? (I know Adam to be an expert.) Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being misinformed. Should there be an adjustement? Shouldn't the committee take into account the error you made? In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. They take what is probably an anti-percentage position knowing (thinking) that if they have been misinformed they will be able to make the right choice on appeal. In Appeal #26 from Lille, it appears that a spade lead has the highest probability of success with or without the misinformation. And, that the correct information would have only slightly increased the likelyhood of a spade lead being a success. It does not seem to me that this slight increase should be enough for an adjustment to be made when the player made what appears to be a clearly inferior choice. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 01:37:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:37:59 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12823 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:37:51 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id LAA14999; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809091717.MAA06663@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Sep 9, 98 08:08:39 am Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:40:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I received a private question about one of my statements. Since this is proof that I was not 100% clear I'll reply in public. > Adam: > Just out of curiousity, can you give me an example of a case where >there is no damage at all? Would that mean only cases where, for example, >the MI [or whatever] leads to a worse score for the OS than correct >information? Or would there ever be cases where the correct information >suggests a more favorable action but we rule no damage anyway? > Just trying to understand your position. Yes, I mean cases where the infraction does not lead to a worse score for the NOS. In Appeal 1, for instance, that would hold if the game that was not bid would have gone down. We on the BLML are well familiar with the injunction that if there is no damage there can be no redress - I quoted it in my first message in this thread. The Laws cannot assume such familiarity - they make it explicit where they can. A law that provided penalties for MI, for instance, regardless of whether any damage resulted, and regardless of whether that damage, if any, was consequent, would not be unreasonable. There is no such law, however. We have such a law for revokes, but no such law for MI, so automatic penalties for MI are not part of the game. Note that I think the thread of argument has moved passed this point. We seem to be agreed that Law 40 means that in order to adjust there must be damage and that damage must be, at least in part, a consequence of the infraction. Whether there is such a thing, then, as damage which is not a consequence of an infraction would seem to be a moot point. Note also that I find it refreshing to engage in an argument on the internet that does move forward. It's disappointingly rare, and it speaks well of the BLML. No, that doesn't mean that I won't resort to repeating myself if I think it necessary! AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 02:20:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:20:53 +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 CAA13117 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:20:46 +1000 Received: from client080e.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.14] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zH9VQ-0007RR-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:23:37 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Appeals from Lille Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:31:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddcd0$045aa6c0$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 >>---------->I suppose we'll all have to get the FLB out now you're both back. We had >a great party while you were in Lille :) >-- ++++ I do not see why you should not just carry on working without it ? ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 02:25:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:25:13 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13139 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:25:07 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id MAA21659; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980910111836.007f6940@maine.rr.com> References: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:26:56 -0400 To: Tim Goodwin From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM -0400 9/10/98, Tim Goodwin wrote: >Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. >There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will >select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the >correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% >chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. >If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct >choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an >adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? (I know Adam to be an >expert.) Thanks, Tim! I'd like to be able to suppose that everyone at the table at the World Championships is an expert, but we know it's not so. Also do remember that I was not at the table for Appeal 1. My short answer is that there should be an adjustment or adjustments under Law 12C2, if and only if director or the AC judges that they are warranted under the conditions described by Law 12C2. In the case you describe one might guess that an adjustment would be made for the OS but not the NOS. I don't think it's needed in most instances, and you don't mention whether it applies here, but remember the "kicker", LAW 72B1. >Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there >is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert >will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% >and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being >misinformed. Should there be an adjustement? Shouldn't the committee take >into account the error you made? Yes, there should be an adjustment. No, they should not take into account the error, qua error. The Laws do not say they should take it into account, and make perfect sense if they do not. The AC will take it into account as the action chosen at the table when they consider, under Law 12C2, the likelihood of a different action being chosen. >In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They >could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. If this were a consideration the AC should have mentioned it in their write-up. >They take what is >probably an anti-percentage position knowing (thinking) that if they have >been misinformed they will be able to make the right choice on appeal. If I judged such were the case I might look for a way under the Laws to adjust the score only for the OS. >In Appeal #26 from Lille, it appears that a spade lead has the highest >probability of success with or without the misinformation. And, that the >correct information would have only slightly increased the likelyhood of a >spade lead being a success. It does not seem to me that this slight >increase should be enough for an adjustment to be made when the player made >what appears to be a clearly inferior choice. No one's posted Appeal 26 to the list yet, and since it involves several of us personally I was hoping to postpone it until we could settle some of the issues involved in Appeal 1, which is surprisingly similar. If anyone wants to see Appeal 26 I'll be happy to mail it to you or to post it now. AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 02:25:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:25:31 +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 CAA13152 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:25:25 +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 JAA10080 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809101627.JAA10080@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:27:25 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +++ My objective is to create powers in the wake of an infraction > which enable players to receive the fairest outcome from the problem > that can be achieved. So I repeat, with apologies to those who can read, > that 12C3 intends total freedom to ACs to do what they consider > most nearly achieves this objective. Thank you for the opinion. I see now that the ACBL (which probably means Edgar Kaplan) was wise in rejecting a law that gives unlimited power to ACs for assigning adjusted scores. While L12C2 is obviously inadequate for achieving good equity in many cases, it puts a lid on the Pandora's box of unbridled AC freedom. > I note Marvin's quibble about the wording. Following a ruling > 'score stands' one has to be able to conceive that the table result is > then 'assigned' or something like that - but since we are reasonably > intelligent human beings I think we can live with the words as they are, > and understand what is meant. I quibble with words that don't convey the intent. One has to be able to conceive that a score adjustment by a TD may be of the artificial type, not a "score stands" or normal assigned score adjustment. I have an experiment in the works to see if that statement about understanding L12C3 is true. David S. says one cannot understand L12C3 until one works with it for a while, or something to that effect. Its meaning can't be all that clear. David S. also writes: >>I don't say that L12C3 is good because it is obviously perfect from its clear and concise wording: I just say that it works. Even David S., who seems to be reasonably intelligent, implies that the wording is deficient for conveying its intent. > Actually I would say Denis Howard > came up with something concise to serve the purpose. More concise, to the purpose, and understandable to those of us who are not reasonably intelligent: ...an appeals committee may ignore L12C2 when assigning adjusted scores. > In EBL and WBF > territory I have seen all kinds of variations in using this power; most > recently in Lille. I noticed the mixing of artificial and assigned scores in cases 23 and 27. If such abuse of AC power is permitted by L12C3, or encouraged by it, then it is not a good law. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 03:49:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 03:49:28 +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 DAA13348 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 03:49:21 +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 KAA20231 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809101751.KAA20231@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:51:20 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote > > >Vitold wrote: > > > > > David wrote > > I am quite interested, and not sure of the answers. Still, my > >impression is that there are roughly speaking the following definitions > >of an LA. > > > >Denmark, Europe, World: An action that would appear to be a logical > >alternative action. > > > > If we could come to some consensus about these definitions then I > >would summarise them in a little article and put it on my Bridgepage. > "Consensus" on BLML? I thought that was a no-no, but I applaud the idea. > ++++ The WBFLC wrote words to be interpreted > according to the meaning of the English Language. > > 'alternative' = presenting a possible choice > 'logical' = characterized by valid reasoning > > The device of percentages offered to TDs are > crutches presented by ZOs, NBOs, etc. to help > the TDs measure their tread to the effects of the > language. > > ## Grattan ~~ ++++ Surely Edgar Kaplan's notion of what constitutes a "logical alternative," which I attribute to him although it was promulgated by the ACBL LC in 1992, should be given serious consideration and not ignored: "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." Jeff Goldsmith opined that even this was too vague and too restrictive, leading to a zero percent rule if some peers might seriously consider the action but none would take it. In reply, Kaplan (*The Bridge World*, November 1995) gave the following illustration, which I will condense a little: ###### You are vulnerable vs non-vulnerable, LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates 25 seconds and passes, RHO passes, and you hold S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82. You balance with 4S, +650. The typical AC member believes that he would come up with that winning action, so the decision will be "result stands." What the LC tried to do was redirect attention from the winning action to the losing action. Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the score should be adjusted to 4H passed out.###### That interpretation of LA is far better than any puerile percentage guidelines that have been issued, including the 25% rule that was an ACBL LC guideline prior to 1992. The typical TD/AC, at least in these parts, will say that since all other pairs in the field bid 4S, passing 4H is not an LA. That constitutes a pre-1992 interpretation of L16A. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 04:42:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 04:42:07 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13626 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 04:42:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17256 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:39:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809101839.NAA17256@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:39:59 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 11:18 AM -0400 9/10/98, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. > >There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will > >select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the > >correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% > >chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. > >If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct > >choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an > >adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? (I know Adam to be an > >expert.) > > My short answer is that there should be an adjustment or adjustments under > Law 12C2, if and only if director or the AC judges that they are warranted > under the conditions described by Law 12C2. In the case you describe one > might guess that an adjustment would be made for the OS but not the NOS. I think this is unclear, and needs clarification. If the LA is "likely" or "at all probable" do we always adjust even if the MI [etc.] only changes its likelihood minimally? This is why, IMHO, we cannot apply the L12 guidelines to the L40 ruling. Are we to ask whether the LA is probable/likely, or whether it is probable/likely _that the MI caused the pair to miss the LA_? See example below. > >Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there > >is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert > >will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% > >and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being > >misinformed. Should there be an adjustement? Shouldn't the committee take > >into account the error you made? > > Yes, there should be an adjustment. No, they should not take into account > the error, qua error. The Laws do not say they should take it into account, I agree with this, FWIW. The error _qua error_ doesn't matter. > and make perfect sense if they do not. The AC will take it into account as > the action chosen at the table when they consider, under Law 12C2, the > likelihood of a different action being chosen. Suppose we mix Tim's example with [IIRC] Herman's. Suppose that there's a 60% chance the expert will bid A and a 40% chance they'll choose B with the MI. Suppose that _without_ the MI, the chance are 59 and 41. By virtually anyone's standards, B is a LA. But, at the same time, the chance that the MI caused the pair to choose B is minute--far below the L40 standards for at all probable or likely under most interpretations. Do we adjust? If so, we're really adjusting because the superior action was _a priori_ a LA, not because we think there's any real chance that the MI led to the inferior action being chosen. What others are arguing is that this means that _even though B would be a LA under L40_, nevertheless _the MI was not even slightly likely to have led to the poor result_, and therefore it is wrong to suggest that the infraction caused any damage. Ergo, we need standards [formal or informal] to tell us when we regard an infraction as having caused damage, _before_ we evaluate what LA's were probable/likely under L12. > >In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They > >could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. > > If this were a consideration the AC should have mentioned it in their write-up. I agree. If _this_ was the basis of the ruling, it should have been mentioned. It is irrelevant to our evaluation of L40, in any event. > AW > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 05:48:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 05:48:21 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13777 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 05:48:15 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:51:09 -0700 Message-ID: <35F82E3E.AC5D8B6F@home.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:53:34 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: LA/L16A (was Re: Lille_Open_Pairs) References: <199809101751.KAA20231@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hate to disagree with Marv (and even more so with EK), but once in a while I have to. Marvin L. French wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > ++++ The WBFLC wrote words to be interpreted > > according to the meaning of the English Language. > > > > 'alternative' = presenting a possible choice > > 'logical' = characterized by valid reasoning > > > > The device of percentages offered to TDs are > > crutches presented by ZOs, NBOs, etc. to help > > the TDs measure their tread to the effects of the > > language. > > > > ## Grattan ~~ ++++ > > Surely Edgar Kaplan's notion of what constitutes a "logical > alternative," which I attribute to him although it was promulgated > by the ACBL LC in 1992, should be given serious consideration and > not ignored: > > "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider > in a vacuum." I find this "notion" too weak and vague on one count and simply wrong on another. 1) "*some* number" adds further vagueness to an already vague wording, rather than offering clarification. Is one enough? should it be ten? is it really an absolute number (1 of 2 is same as 1 of 10)? etc,etc. Frankly, I'd then even prefer putting a percentage figure on it, since that is anyway subject to subjective opinion as to whether or not X% would really do that.I'd also prefer *no* "clarification" at all, since Grattan's purely linguistic interpretation seems open to less fluctuations than that of the ACBL LC. 2) Why "in a vacuum"? "Absent UI" or similar I could accept and understand. If that is what is meant, why isn't it said, when it is much clearer than "in a vacuum" (which could include all kinds of things such as opponent's bidding, the system played, etc,etc). > Kaplan (*The Bridge World*, November 1995) gave the > following illustration, which I will condense a little: > > ###### > You are vulnerable vs non-vulnerable, LHO opens 4H, partner > hesitates 25 seconds and passes, RHO passes, and you hold S-KQ10763 > H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82. You balance with 4S, +650. The typical AC member > believes that he would come up with that winning action, so the > decision will be "result stands." What the LC tried to do was > redirect attention from the winning action to the losing action. > Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the > score should be adjusted to 4H passed out.###### > > That interpretation of LA is far better than any puerile percentage > guidelines that have been issued, including the 25% rule that was > an ACBL LC guideline prior to 1992. I'm not so sure. Using "absurdity" as the threshold seems to imply a percentage of maybe 1-2%. From what I've seen, most people feel instinctively this is too low, even when not trying to affix any specific number. Furthermore, EK's argument that "pass would be right quite often" I find correct in theory (who can dispute it) but irrelevant to the problem. Bridge bidding and play is a game of percentages, we all agree on that (I hope). In a vacuum (hehehe!) we all play for 6 cards to split 4-2, but it cannot be disputed that they will split 3-3 "quite often". From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 06:02:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:02:24 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13811 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:02:19 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:05:14 -0700 Message-ID: <35F8318B.CC697F88@home.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:07:39 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > "What would have happened without the infraction?" is a question that is > explicitly asked under Law 12C2, with guidance for evaluating the implicit > probabalistic component. The same question cannot be asked under Law 40 as > well. This reflects exactly how I see it, i.e. don't attempt to do *without* guidance in L40, what can be done *with* guidance in L12. That's why it makes sense to be "generous" to NOS in L40, just establish if there is any causal link and if yes, pass the ball to L12 and let it do it's job. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 06:06:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:06:15 +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 ESMTP id GAA13828 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:06:10 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHD1d-0006JZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:09:06 +0000 Message-ID: <7URjSCAMRC+1EwaI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809101426.KAA01562@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> What is wrong with the scenario presented? That it leads to a >> peculiar form of abuse. Suppose when you psyche next on a 2-count you >> could silence partner? Yes, that would be beneficial! The odds are >> better with a silenced partner. Admittedly you will hear some *very* >> heavy breathing as he passes throughout with his 21-count. >> >> At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing >> partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the >> possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be >> silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that >> it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. > >Something is very wrong here -- either the explanation or the conclusion. > >If David is saying a player could envision that an insufficient bid >on one hand could help him on some future hand, that seems quite >far fetched and well beyond the intent of L23 or L72B1. If you are >worried about the future hand, then adjust the score on that one >when -- or if -- it occurs. Perhaps when I wrote "next time" I could have been more explicit: I meant at his next time to call. It is tricky saying "next round" when it is really the same round. If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the *same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 07:11:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:11:28 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14102 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:11:22 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:14:17 -0700 Message-ID: <35F841B8.2D12461E@home.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:16:40 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: <3.0.5.32.19980910111836.007f6940@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. > There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will > select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the > correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% > chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. > If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct > choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an > adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? (I know Adam to be an > expert.) Good example. The way I think L40 should work is that if you selected A, although it's own odds haven't changed, it's odds relative to the successful action have. Without MI chances are better that you'd find the winning action, although you'd probably still get it "wrong". This should be enough to trigger L12C. Once in 12C, the outcome hinges on "likely" resp. "at all probable". I'd rule that 30% is not "likely" (but it's borderline) and let the score stand for NOS. However, I'd rule that 30% is at least somewhat "probable", so I'd adjust for the OS to score B. I would feel reasonably comfortable that equity was served, but would have no quarrel with AC-members who'd feel we should vary this a bit according L12C3, giving NOS some portion of score B and/or giving OS some portion of score A, and I suspect both sides would depart with a decent feeling abt the process. > Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there > is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert > will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% > and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being > misinformed. Should there be an adjustement? Well, yes L12C should be triggered even more obviously than above (the MI made your action 3 times more attractive than absent MI). > Shouldn't the committee take > into account the error you made? No, the laws don't provide for that. And who says you made an error? 30% of your peers would apparantly take the same action, so it surely cannot be deemed "absurd" or an "egregious error". maybe you chose a 67% line instead of a superior 71% line that requires a while to figure out. If the best line became more obvious (90 vs 70%) with the correct info, don't you at least deserve a consideration for adjustment? Thus, trigger L12C and let it do it's job. Once there, clearly a 90% action is "likely" so I'd adjust to A for both sides. > In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They > could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. (snipping speculative comments) I have said several times that the "self-protection" aspect should be considered in L40C (don't judge MI in the first place if you feel NOS "should have suspected....") and an argument can be made that even if you feel L12C is triggered, you can reconsider that aspect in order do equity as per L12C3. The more one looks at it's possibilities, the more I start to like L12C3 (it's intent, if not it's wording:-)). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 07:44:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:44:22 +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 HAA14259 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:44:15 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA01552 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA02054 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:47:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809102147.RAA02054@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows > that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing > partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the > *same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. Ah! Yes, I think we will all agree with this. You could add "makes an insufficient bid" to your first sentence. Suppose partner passes, RHO opens a strong 2C, and I have my usual zero-count but with five small spades. I'd say an insufficient bid of 1H followed by a correction to 2H would be, shall we say, subject to an L72B1 adjustment. Of course there is a bridge judgment question as to whether, in the given situation (*prior to the infraction*), a psych with partner silenced is "with the odds" or not. Normally I would think it would not be, but I guess you could convince me if the hand is weak enough. You could very easily convince me if partner is a passed hand of if the opponents are clearly strong. An interesting application. The lawmakers did a very good thing with L72B1. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 08:41:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:41:26 +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 IAA14460 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:41:18 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h38.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.55) id CAA18613; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:44:02 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F8F0EE.993@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:44:14 -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: psyche when partner is silenced References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David wrote: At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing > partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the > possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be > silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that > it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. > Very nice remark and resolution - all that time I thought about the case cause I was disagreed with "result stands" but couldnot prove it. David did, good work. And one should appreciate this chinging of mind... Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 08:53:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:53:13 +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 IAA14493 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:53:07 +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 PAA28841; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809102255.PAA28841@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: LA/L16A (was Re: Lille_Open_Pairs) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:53:35 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > I hate to disagree with Marv (and even more so with EK), but once in a > while I have to. That's okay. I don't know about EK, but I'm getting used to it! > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > ++++ The WBFLC wrote words to be interpreted > > > according to the meaning of the English Language. > > > > > > 'alternative' = presenting a possible choice > > > 'logical' = characterized by valid reasoning > > > > > > The device of percentages offered to TDs are > > > crutches presented by ZOs, NBOs, etc. to help > > > the TDs measure their tread to the effects of the > > > language. > > > > > > ## Grattan ~~ ++++ > > > > Surely Edgar Kaplan's notion of what constitutes a "logical > > alternative," which I attribute to him although it was promulgated > > by the ACBL LC in 1992, should be given serious consideration and > > not ignored: > > > > "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider > > in a vacuum." > > I find this "notion" too weak and vague on one count and simply wrong on > another. > 1) "*some* number" adds further vagueness to an already vague wording, > rather than offering clarification. (snip) > I'd also prefer *no* "clarification" at all, since > Grattan's purely linguistic interpretation seems open to less > fluctuations than that of the ACBL LC. Grattan explained that: >> 'alternative' = presenting a possible choice >> 'logical' = characterized by valid reasoning But everyone seems to need guidance for determining what constitutes valid reasoning. The ACBL LC wasn't contradicting the "linguistic interpretation," it was trying to aid the understanding of "logical" in the context of L16A, trying to explain what "valid reasoning" would comprise in arriving at an LA. > 2) Why "in a vacuum"? "Absent UI" or similar I could accept and > understand. If that is what is meant, why isn't it said, when it is much > clearer than "in a vacuum" (which could include all kinds of things such > as opponent's bidding, the system played, etc,etc). Well, you are right. The metaphor seems strained, and "absent UI" surely would do. However, this is a quibble (got that from Grattan) that doesn't affect the issue. > > > Kaplan (*The Bridge World*, November 1995) gave the > > following illustration, which I will condense a little: > > > > ###### > > You are vulnerable vs non-vulnerable, LHO opens 4H, partner > > hesitates 25 seconds and passes, RHO passes, and you hold S-KQ10763 > > H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82. You balance with 4S, +650. The typical AC member > > believes that he would come up with that winning action, so the > > decision will be "result stands." What the LC tried to do was > > redirect attention from the winning action to the losing action. > > Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the > > score should be adjusted to 4H passed out.###### > > > > That interpretation of LA is far better than any puerile percentage > > guidelines that have been issued, including the 25% rule that was > > an ACBL LC guideline prior to 1992. > > I'm not so sure. Using "absurdity" as the threshold seems to imply a > percentage of maybe 1-2%. From what I've seen, most people feel > instinctively this is too low, even when not trying to affix any > specific number. The point is that percentages of peer actions do not define what is logical, and therefore are not pertinent here. Most players seem to have no qualms about making a call suggested by partner's hesitation if they think it's logical to do so, while the ethical minority follow Kaplan's guideline, not making a suggested call unless it would be absurd to do otherwise. This is a lot easier principle to follow and to enforce than any "percentage" guidelines, which is probably why L16A reads as it does. A TD/AC has to figure what a player's "peers" would consider logical, which is difficult enough. Throwing percentages into the equation makes the job impossible. As Kaplan wrote in regard to the 4S bid, "If you are convinced that you would always bid 4S, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." Now, rubber bridge is different. All you have to do is follow your own ethical standards and those of your tablemates, avoiding any call that they would deem doubtful or would hurt your conscience. That approach won't work in duplicate bridge, because it's too difficult to adjudicate. > Furthermore, EK's argument that "pass would be right quite often" I find > correct in theory (who can dispute it) but irrelevant to the problem. If pass is often right, a reasonable view, then *ipso facto* it's logical. Change L16A if you disagree with this concept. > Bridge bidding and play is a game of percentages, we all agree on that > (I hope). In a vacuum (hehehe!) we all play for 6 cards to split 4-2, > but it cannot be disputed that they will split 3-3 "quite often". Then change L16A to read "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information, unless percentages strongly favor his doing so." Remember that L16A2 says that if the TD/AC considers that a call such as the above 4S bid has not resulted in damage, then despite the infraction he/she does not adjust the score. The same principle applies to L40C--no damage, no adjustment. Both laws are aimed at redress, not punishment. What constitutes "damage" is another thread. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 08:58:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:58:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14519 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:58:51 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA03439 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA02173 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:02:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809102302.TAA02173@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Tim Goodwin > Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. > There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will > select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the > correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% > chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. > If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct > choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an > adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? Of course working out those percentages is the hard part, but once you have them, all we need to do is go to L12C2 or 12C3 (or so I claim). First, we discount the 20% of selecting B with the MI. (To see why, suppose we are at 16.6% with MI and 16.7% without it. Another way of looking at things is that the NOS had a chance to get things right even with the MI. They don't get back that chance, but they do get back the equity that they lost because of the MI.) Then without the MI, the chances of B and C are 1/8 (20%/20%+60%) and of A is 3/4. So the NOS certainly get A (the only "likely" result), while the OS may get anything depending on the order. Let's suppose A is most favorable to them, C is next, and B is least (as I think you intended). Then B doesn't quite reach the threshold of "at all probable" (in the ACBL; other SO's have no specific guidelines), so the OS get C. But it is pretty close, and with slightly different percentages in the first place, you would assign B. Anyway, the point is, if you have specific percentage results like the above and percentage definitions of the terms in L12C2, that's all you need. Outside the ACBL, you could use L12C3 to assign 1/8 each of B and C and 3/4 of A. That's easy too. As I said, getting the percentages is the hard part. And there's the slightly tricky bit about discounting the equity the NOS still have left after the infraction. > Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there > is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert > will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% > and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being > misinformed. Again we discount the 70% chance of going right after the MI. (The player failed to find it at the table.) Then the odds without the MI are 20% A and 10% B. If A is favorable to the NOS, that's what both sides get, and that seems fair to me. Essentially the OS has turned a very small chance that the NOS would go wrong into a much larger chance, and they shouldn't gain by it. Under L12C3, you could give 2/3 of A and 1/3 of B. That also seems fair, again assuming you can estimate these odds in the first place. > In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They > could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. As a matter of bridge judgment (and on the facts presented in the writeup), I disagree with this. The OS could very well have had an agreement that any hand with four card or better support would bid differently, perhaps cuebid. Why should the NOS assume they have been misinformed, especially when the information is volunteered? But if your bridge judgment is different, that's fine. Assign your percentages, and turn the crank on the arithmetic. > In Appeal #26 from Lille, it appears that a spade lead has the highest > probability of success with or without the misinformation. And, that the > correct information would have only slightly increased the likelyhood of a > spade lead being a success. You need to look at the chance the player would go wrong. If there was a 100% chance of going right without MI, and the MI suddenly creates a losing option, surely it is right to give back the score that would have obtained without the MI. (In case 26, my bridge judgment is that the MI wasn't important, but that's not for the reason given above. In essence, I'm saying this case corresponds to the example below.) > From: "Grant C. Sterling" > Suppose we mix Tim's example with [IIRC] Herman's. Suppose that > there's a 60% chance the expert will bid A and a 40% chance they'll choose > B with the MI. Suppose that _without_ the MI, the chance are 59 and 41. > By virtually anyone's standards, B is a LA. But, at the same time, the > chance that the MI caused the pair to choose B is minute--far below the > L40 standards for at all probable or likely under most interpretations. The standards are in L12C, not in L40. Just go through the exercise again. I take it B is the winning option for the NOS, since the MI made it less attractive. (If not, there's no damage.) So discount the 40% of B after the MI, and the odds are 1:59 B:A. Thus B is not even at all probable. No adjustment. Or rather, technically, yes assign an adjusted score under L12C2, but that score is A, which is what happened at the table. Under L12C3, you could give 1/60 B, 59/60 A, but why bother? Logical alternatives don't come into the picture at all, as far as I can tell. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 08:59:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:59:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14536 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:59:14 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHFj8-0002x8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:02:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809101426.KAA01562@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809101426.KAA01562@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> What is wrong with the scenario presented? That it leads to a >> peculiar form of abuse. Suppose when you psyche next on a 2-count you >> could silence partner? Yes, that would be beneficial! The odds are >> better with a silenced partner. Admittedly you will hear some *very* >> heavy breathing as he passes throughout with his 21-count. >> >> At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing >> partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the >> possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be >> silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that >> it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. > >Something is very wrong here -- either the explanation or the conclusion. > >If David is saying a player could envision that an insufficient bid >on one hand could help him on some future hand, that seems quite >far fetched and well beyond the intent of L23 or L72B1. If you are >worried about the future hand, then adjust the score on that one >when -- or if -- it occurs. I've already made the point that in this partnership this psyche in this position can't be used again, because the pair have an illegal convention. But First time out - no such agreement or understanding exists. -- 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 Sep 11 09:19:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:19:52 +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 ESMTP id JAA14574 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:19:44 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHG2v-0006pB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:22:38 +0000 Message-ID: <7vZ35BAg6F+1EwJk@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:20:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <7URjSCAMRC+1EwaI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7URjSCAMRC+1EwaI@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> What is wrong with the scenario presented? That it leads to a >>> peculiar form of abuse. Suppose when you psyche next on a 2-count you >>> could silence partner? Yes, that would be beneficial! The odds are >>> better with a silenced partner. Admittedly you will hear some *very* >>> heavy breathing as he passes throughout with his 21-count. >>> >>> At the time the player bid out of turn, could he envisage that forcing >>> partner to pass would work to his benefit? Yes! He could envisage the >>> possibility that he would psyche next time and his partner would be >>> silenced. So at the time of the irregularity he could have known that >>> it would work to his benefit. So apply L23 or L72B1 and adjust. >> >>Something is very wrong here -- either the explanation or the conclusion. >> >>If David is saying a player could envision that an insufficient bid >>on one hand could help him on some future hand, that seems quite >>far fetched and well beyond the intent of L23 or L72B1. If you are >>worried about the future hand, then adjust the score on that one >>when -- or if -- it occurs. > > Perhaps when I wrote "next time" I could have been more explicit: I >meant at his next time to call. It is tricky saying "next round" when >it is really the same round. > > If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows >that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing >partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the >*same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. > I am not entirely convinced by these arguments. The problem arises that whenever you have taken a course of action which silences partner then the proposal is that you cannot psyche because you could have known it might be to your advantage to have silenced partner. However, the law explicitly caters for the infraction (whatever it is) that silences partner. Fine. Penalty paid. And the law says that you may psyche. So you do. But I've never seen an adjustment where someone, say, undercalls and then bashes 3NT (which happens to make) ... and I don't see the difference. We are not being asked to make a bridge judgement here about whether the hand is weak or strong, we're just applying the laws as they are writ. Am I missing a fundamental point? -- 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 Sep 11 09:19:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:19:54 +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 JAA14575 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:19:45 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-161.access.net.il [192.116.204.161]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA11915; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:22:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35F85F29.4181FC63@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:22:17 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced References: <199809101431.KAA01581@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve The bid of 1H is UI ... after the BOOR (bid out of rotation ! this is the correct definition , not bid out of turn ). It is a rude infraction KNOWING his partner will not sacrifice at 5-6H as I said , and indicating his partner an information which couldn't be available to him , if the irregularity wouldn't occur. A top player will play back either K club - IMO for 95% or Singl Sp - hoping the declarer tried to bluff 5% - ; never will return heart . By the way - in our bidding system - and for most top players - in a competitive bidding - any bid by the 2 weak opener , at 4th and up level = lead ask ......... In the Probst's case - he did it at 1st level - this was brilliant . Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Dany Haimovici > > I don't think his 1H bid is a question of ~psyche~ , it is > > a very simple UI !!!! > > What is the UI? The fact that partner must pass is AI to all players. > (Otherwise, the usual remedies such as bidding 3NT or passing strong > hands would be illegal.) Was there something else I missed? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 09:30:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:30:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14627 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:30:28 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHGDK-0001iU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:33:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:32:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <35F85F29.4181FC63@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35F85F29.4181FC63@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes >Hi Steve > >The bid of 1H is UI ... after the BOOR (bid out of rotation ! >this is the correct definition , not bid out of turn ). >It is a rude infraction KNOWING his partner will not sacrifice >at 5-6H as I said , and indicating his partner an information which >couldn't be available to him , if the irregularity wouldn't occur. > >A top player will play back either K club - IMO for 95% or >Singl Sp - hoping the declarer tried to bluff 5% - ; never >will return heart . Declarer Banned the Spade lead, and the bidding SHOWS he has a stiff club, Richard is getting his ruff 100% of the time now. >By the way - in our bidding system - and for most top players - >in a competitive bidding - any bid by the 2 weak opener , at 4th >and up level = lead ask ......... >In the Probst's case - he did it at 1st level - this was brilliant . > >Dany > > >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: Dany Haimovici >> > I don't think his 1H bid is a question of ~psyche~ , it is >> > a very simple UI !!!! >> >> What is the UI? The fact that partner must pass is AI to all players. >> (Otherwise, the usual remedies such as bidding 3NT or passing strong >> hands would be illegal.) Was there something else I missed? -- 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 Sep 11 11:23:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:23:26 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14968 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:23:21 +1000 Received: from PENTIUM (cc.southcom.com.au [203.60.16.155]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA02715 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:26:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980911111812.0092a540@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:18:12 +1000 To: BLML From: Mark Abraham Subject: Cat Status Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having recently re-subscribed, I thought I'd advise my cat status at Craig's suggestion. Although currently a university student living in a university college and thus unable to keep a pet, I have a small black and white master at home by the name of Kittini, daughter of the sadly deceased Puccini. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 11:45:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:45:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA15009 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:45:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHIJd-0001Xw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:48:04 +0000 Message-ID: <$AQiHmAJcG+1Ew7C@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:55:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs In-Reply-To: <199809101751.KAA20231@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: More of the same. Whatever you have said I have tried to answer and ignore the attitude. I have tried to be helpful, giving opinions even when I know you are holding an untenable position for no good reason. This last effort is just one too much. I cannot continue. If you see fit to change your attitude to one helpful to the list rather than detrimental no doubt someone will let me know. Unfortunately my software [so good in other ways] does not allow a killfile in a mailing list [because it believes all the mail comes from Markus!] but I shall pass over your articles unread. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 11:45:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:45:36 +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 ESMTP id LAA15024 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:45:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHIJu-0001Xx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:48:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:33:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower 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: We must RTFLB. Now, some of the answers to these questions have quoted L26C [mixed L26A and L26B] but there is no such animal. So any answers based on L26C are incorrect. L26A starts "If ..." and L26B says "For other ..." so in each case your first decision must be whether the case is L26A or L26B. >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. Let us read L26A. "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits ...". Does it? I do not think this is unambiguous. Personally I would in fact decide that this does not relate to a specified suit. So I would rule under L26B: forbid any suit. But I do not feel strongly about this. >1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. Clubs are specified: clubs are not specified by another bid from the same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a club. >1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected >to 3C, but NS become declaring side. Clubs are specified: clubs are specified by another bid from the same player: L26A1: no lead penalty. >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. Spades are specified: spades are not specified by another bid from the same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a spade. >b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. Spades are specified: spades are specified by another bid from the same player: L26A1: no lead penalty. >c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. Spades are specified: spades are not specified by another bid from the same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a spade. >d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring >side. Spades are specified: spades are not specified by another bid from the same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a spade. >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. *I* think he should be reading BLML! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 13:47:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:47:11 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA15249 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:47:06 +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 UAA06658 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809110349.UAA06658@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:48:36 -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, perhaps accidentally publicly when a private e-mail would have been more appropriate: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > More of the same. > > Whatever you have said I have tried to answer and ignore the attitude. > I have tried to be helpful, giving opinions even when I know you are > holding an untenable position for no good reason. This last effort is > just one too much. I cannot continue. > > If you see fit to change your attitude to one helpful to the list > rather than detrimental no doubt someone will let me know. > Unfortunately my software [so good in other ways] does not allow a > killfile in a mailing list [because it believes all the mail comes from > Markus!] but I shall pass over your articles unread. > Someone please tell me which "last effort" he is referring to, as my last on this subject, 10:51 am this day, seems rather inocuous. I thought Mr. Stevenson was soliciting ideas for a consensus opinion on what constitutes an LA, so I threw in Kaplan's belief. Did I do something wrong? Is agreeing with Edgar Kaplan grounds for ostracism? What nerve did I strike? My critiques of NABC Appeals Cases have led to innumerable discussions on BLML, sometimes branching off serendipitously into interesting side issues. I thought this was "helpful to the list rather than detrimental." If my writing has indeed been detrimental to BLML, I'll restrict myself to RGB, which no one regards as a fiefdom. Just let me know, you won't hurt my feelings. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 17:32:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA19874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:32:25 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA19869 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:32:15 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id JAA09293 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:35:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J1OBY7B1KW000YMR@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:35:06 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:34:55 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:34:55 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: re:lille open pairs To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <2655340911091998/A26061/EXPERT/11C95A623600*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C95A623600 X400-MTS-identifier: [;2655340911091998/A26061/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No escape anymore, being challenged by a countryman. But before reacting on all questions I want to get some information from France. Most of the players did play all 142 boards, so session 1 nor session 5 was screwed up the way some of you suggest. But we had serious problems. Have some patience. Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 17:42:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA19908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:42:01 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA19903 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:41:50 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h2.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/%I%) id LAA26857; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:44:34 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35F96F9A.3770@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:44:42 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced References: <7vZ35BAg6F+1EwJk@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > David wrote: > > > >If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows > >that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing > >partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually > > >the *same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. > > > I am not entirely convinced by these arguments. The problem arises that > whenever you have taken a course of action which silences partner then > the proposal is that you cannot psyche because you could have known it > might be to your advantage to have silenced partner. As I understood David's point the difference between caseswith strong hand and weak hand is: when you have strong hand and make BOOT (or another irregularity) the rough estimate of odds that your partner has enough strength (for premium contract) is 1:2 against you; that's why your agressive bid (as 3nt) with your silent partner may be wrong approximatly in 2 cases per 3; you are going to pay for your risky decision (bid at high level); when you have weak hand and make BOOT (or another irregularity) the same estimaye of odds is 2:1 for you; that's why your agressive (psychic) bid (with silent partner) at low level may be for your profit in 2 cases per 3; you are not going to pay, the bid is unrisky. And all this conclusion MIGHT be made in before infraction. That's why with weak hand you COULD know that you infraction might be profitable to you. It is David's idea - as I see it. I agree:) No accusation, you made nothing bad - but you MIGHT be under L23 and L72B1. The Laws... Vitold P.S. Sorry for my English. When I wrote "you" I meant "one" - it is russicism. With weak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 18:21:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:21:47 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA19973 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:21:41 +1000 Received: from modem114.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.114] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zHOVQ-00016d-00; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:24:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:22:52 +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: Marvin L. French >> > > I noticed the mixing of artificial and assigned scores in cases 23 > and 27. If such abuse of AC power is permitted by L12C3, or > encouraged by it, then it is not a good law. +++ The AC can award an art adj score under 12A2 or 12C1 or 84E in relevant circumstances. I do not consider 12C3 caters for artificial adjustments, but for assigned adjustments which depart from the oppressive formulae of 12C2. These, however, can be expressed in matchpoints (for which percentages are merely a shorthand mode of expression - one should not label an adjusted score as 'artificial' merely because it is communicated to the scorers as a percentage of the available match points.). Technically the awards in 23, for example and however expressed, were assigned scores calculated in match points, not artificial scores, in my view - but the semantics are hardly worth a second glance. It is sad to hear the efforts of ACs to give fairer adjustments described as 'abuse'; this highlights the difference in our experience of committees. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 19:04:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:04:30 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20029 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:04:23 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-169.uunet.be [194.7.13.169]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14979 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F8105E.BB521B45@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:46:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809101627.JAA10080@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: > > > Thank you for the opinion. I see now that the ACBL (which probably > means Edgar Kaplan) was wise in rejecting a law that gives > unlimited power to ACs for assigning adjusted scores. While L12C2 > is obviously inadequate for achieving good equity in many cases, it > puts a lid on the Pandora's box of unbridled AC freedom. > Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme judiciary ? A score has to be determined. A Committee is set up, presumably of the best people you can find. This committee is not bound by rigourous rules as to how they shall find that score. What is so bad about that ? After all, they can not go overboard and award 10000% on a board to a competitor they particularly like. They will determine a score between 0 and 100%, equitable as they best see fit. I really don't see why this is such a bad thing, or why it would be a particularly good thing for the Americans to not want this. If you find it bad, vote against it, but for ACBL to say that it's in the rules but we don't want it is simple stupid. > > I noticed the mixing of artificial and assigned scores in cases 23 > and 27. If such abuse of AC power is permitted by L12C3, or > encouraged by it, then it is not a good law. > While not exactly happy with the outcome of 23, I don't see why you would find it an "abuse". That AC decided that the score they gave was an equitable one. Who are we to argue that fact ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 19:54:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:54:32 +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 ESMTP id TAA20212 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:54:26 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHPwb-0001Mq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:56:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 03:20:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: <6GPD2lACZwz1EwTz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrooooooooooowwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy 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, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy 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 Fri Sep 11 19:54:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:54:38 +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 ESMTP id TAA20218 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:54:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHPwf-0001NQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:56:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 03:15:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <7vZ35BAg6F+1EwJk@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows >>that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing >>partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the >>*same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. >I am not entirely convinced by these arguments. The problem arises that >whenever you have taken a course of action which silences partner then >the proposal is that you cannot psyche because you could have known it >might be to your advantage to have silenced partner. > >However, the law explicitly caters for the infraction (whatever it is) >that silences partner. Fine. Penalty paid. And the law says that you >may psyche. So you do. But I've never seen an adjustment where someone, >say, undercalls and then bashes 3NT (which happens to make) ... and I >don't see the difference. We are not being asked to make a bridge >judgement here about whether the hand is weak or strong, we're just >applying the laws as they are writ. > >Am I missing a fundamental point? Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 20:42:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:42:03 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA20247 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:41:49 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-38.uunet.be [194.7.13.38]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24521 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:44:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35F8FBB3.DB0D678B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:30:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809102302.TAA02173@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hate to be replying to Steve on this one, because he ends up exactly where I want to be, and yet he takes a few wrong turns. Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Tim Goodwin [let's discard the example with three choices, that is far too difficult, we may yet return to such a problem if we have a better understanding of the problem with only two choices] > > Of course working out those percentages is the hard part, but once you > have them, all we need to do is go to L12C2 or 12C3 (or so I claim). > Indeed, and it's up to the AC to work out the probabilities, but to us here to infer the rulings. > First, we discount the 20% of selecting B with the MI. (To see why, > suppose we are at 16.6% with MI and 16.7% without it. Another way of > looking at things is that the NOS had a chance to get things right even > with the MI. They don't get back that chance, but they do get back the > equity that they lost because of the MI.) I think Steve has lost his way around the words here and if I understand what he means, I think he is wrong. > > Anyway, the point is, if you have specific percentage results like the > above and percentage definitions of the terms in L12C2, that's all you > need. > > Outside the ACBL, you could use L12C3 to assign 1/8 each of B and C and > 3/4 of A. I would like to see our list get in agreement on the WBF handling of things, then let the Americans ponder over what they shall do in the absense of L12C3. Agreed, list ? > That's easy too. As I said, getting the percentages is the > hard part. And there's the slightly tricky bit about discounting the > equity the NOS still have left after the infraction. > > > Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there > > is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert > > will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% > > and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being > > misinformed. > > Again we discount the 70% chance of going right after the MI. (The > player failed to find it at the table.) Then the odds without the MI > are 20% A and 10% B. If A is favorable to the NOS, that's what both > sides get, and that seems fair to me. Essentially the OS has turned a > very small chance that the NOS would go wrong into a much larger > chance, and they shouldn't gain by it. > I would prefer not to use percentages like 90%. I think the Laws intended us to discount small probabilities and so I would always calculate with 100% when the probability is 90% or more. Thus we could easily fill in 100% in a general L12C3 formula and come up with the result we all would give in such a case, even if the NOS went "wrong" in selecting an option that only 30% of the players would take. > Under L12C3, you could give 2/3 of A and 1/3 of B. That also seems > fair, again assuming you can estimate these odds in the first place. > As I would like to see 90% = 100%, I would give A, but that's a minor manner. OTOH, if 90% is not equal to 100%, I disagree with Steve's calculation, but that's another matter. > > But if your bridge judgment is different, that's fine. Assign your > percentages, and turn the crank on the arithmetic. > Indeed, let's try and find the arithmetic. > > You need to look at the chance the player would go wrong. If there was > a 100% chance of going right without MI, and the MI suddenly creates a > losing option, surely it is right to give back the score that would > have obtained without the MI. (In case 26, my bridge judgment is that > the MI wasn't important, but that's not for the reason given above. In > essence, I'm saying this case corresponds to the example below.) > No, the MI was there, and of small importance. I would not say it was not important. It turned a 60% option into a 61% one. Sadly the player had chosen the 40% one. > > From: "Grant C. Sterling" > > Suppose we mix Tim's example with [IIRC] Herman's. Suppose that > > there's a 60% chance the expert will bid A and a 40% chance they'll choose > > B with the MI. Suppose that _without_ the MI, the chance are 59 and 41. > > By virtually anyone's standards, B is a LA. But, at the same time, the > > chance that the MI caused the pair to choose B is minute--far below the > > L40 standards for at all probable or likely under most interpretations. > > The standards are in L12C, not in L40. Just go through the exercise > again. I take it B is the winning option for the NOS, since the MI > made it less attractive. (If not, there's no damage.) So discount the > 40% of B after the MI, and the odds are 1:59 B:A. Thus B is not even > at all probable. No adjustment. Or rather, technically, yes assign an > adjusted score under L12C2, but that score is A, which is what happened > at the table. > > Under L12C3, you could give 1/60 B, 59/60 A, but why bother? > Not completely correct : Out of a hundred players, 40 got it right even with the MI, so we don't hear from them again. Out of the 60 others, how many would have gotten it right ? If the MI and the CI are totally different, then 41% of the 60 (24.1 players) would get it right, and a score of 41% B, 59% A is correct, or even a 12C2 total score of B. If the MI and the CI are very similar, then yes, we can say that only 1 out of the 60 would get it correct now, when he did not before, and so a score of > Logical alternatives don't come into the picture at all, as far as > I can tell. Maybe they do, your examples don't have LA's in them. Now let's try something else : With MI, it is established that 40% would find the correct line (A). Without the MI, let's say this rises to 60%. Again there are 2 possibilities. If the type of information is totally different, then even the damaged players are 60% likely to get it right, so the L12C3 score should be 60%A, 40%B. If the types of information are alike, then Steve's arithmetic says that the chance of getting it right is only 1/3, so the score should be 33%A, 67%B. (both these scores are an improvement, since the player originally got B). But is this equitable ? Only players that have chosen B in the first place will be asking for a change. Let's look at it from a different point: The field, of 100 tables, has no MI, so 60% of the field have done A, 40% B. This results in 70MP to those that have chosen A, 20MP to those that have chosen B. The average score for the players without MI is 60%x70MP + 40%x20MP = 50MP (as expected). With the MI, 40% of the players would still choose A, and score 70MP, but 60% would choose B, and 20MP. Average score for players with MI : 40%x70MP + 60%x20MP = 40MP, or a "damage" of 10MP (10%). I feel that this should be the compensation to all NOS with MI, even if they DID get it right after all! That would mean I would give this player, who got it wrong after MI, a final score of 20MP + 10MP = 30MP. How would this sound in L12C3 terms : 30MP = 20%x70MP+80%x20MP. So you see that although we should in fact give only 20% compensation (60%-40%), this is out of 100%, not out of 80. That also means that the determination of the percentages is less crucial. When we say that without the MI, Adam Wildavsky would have 1% more chance of finding the spade lead, then he can receive a L12C3 score of 1%A, 99%B, regardless of the sense or nonsense of the club lead in the first place. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 21:50:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:50:11 +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 VAA20325 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:50:06 +1000 Received: from client08a9.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.169] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zHRkt-0001YY-00; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:52:48 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddd7a$c8950580$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 >Eric Landau wrote: >>>Why don't >>>they just publish a regulation: >>> ++==++ Having got the bulk of the NBO distribution under way I think I may begin to look at some of the WBF Laws Committee minutes from Lille. Let us begin with this extract:- "Psychic Bids and Plays. Guidance on Psychics issued by the WBF with its Conditions of Contest was studied. The Committee held that the statement in its first paragraph represented the law inaccurately. The Committee draws attention to the manner in which the laws deal with psychic calls and plays. These are entirely legal so long as they are not based on a partnership understanding. A so-say "psychic call" (or play) which is based on a partnership understanding is not properly called "psychic" - it is part of the methods of the partnership in question and subject to the regulations of the sponsoring organisation authorized by Laws 40D and 40E. The Committee affirms that a psychic call or play which is evidently identified by the course of the auction or play, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. Other than this an understanding may be created in the partnership by explicit discussion or by the implicit learning from repeated partnership experience out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences. " ++==++ ~~ I await reaction with interest. Grattan. ~~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 21:59:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:59:29 +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 VAA20364 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:59:20 +1000 Received: from bidule2 (portge14.worldcom.ch [194.235.4.14]) by worldcom.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA22861 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:59:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980911120211.00d9f844@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, 11 Sep 1998 14:02:11 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: More appeals from Lille Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Lille appeals that didnt appear in the bulletins may be found at http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98wbc_app2858.html Yvan Calame From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 22:14:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:14:45 +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 WAA20440 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:14:39 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14049 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980911081811.006f3a44@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:18:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Controlled psyches In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980908080756.006e03b8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:16 PM 9/8/98 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Or adopt the ACBL's wording, which is somewhat different, but comes down to >>the same bottom line? > > Are you sure, Eric? I thought the problem is not that the ACBL's >wording says this, but that some people's interpretation of it does. >There is IMO an enormous difference: in the latter case our discussions, >and discussions caused by us, and other people's discussions after >Lille may change some of the interpretations: if it is the former case >it needs a regulation change. > > What's it say? AFAIK (and I'd probably know) there's no official regulation. The ACBL's position on psyches was presented to its membership in an article in the ACBL Bulletin about 20 years ago. Most of that article is repeated verbatim in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge ("Psychic Bidding"). The article sets out a clear blueprint for ruling against anyone who psychs in any circumstances: "People who employ psychic calls against less experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and thereby be in violation of League regulations. People who psych against their peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching, or of having an unannounced partnership understanding. People who psych against more experienced players... may lose the few good boards they get by being judged to have indulged in unsportsmanlike psyching, or to have disrupted the game." It then goes on to expound at length on how psychers can be found to be in violation of L40B. At one point it says, "Where psychic bids are concerned, however, the nature of the bid or call is such that the need to disclose implicit understandings has the effect of practically preventing their use." It's a long article, and gives much insight into the ACBL's view of psychs. 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 Sep 11 22:40:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:40:22 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA20498 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:40:15 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14758 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980911084348.006f1e0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:43:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: <35F65117.295EF1B8@village.uunet.be> References: <199809081712.NAA25509@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:57 AM 9/9/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Ron Johnson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael writes: >> > >> > >> > Suppose a player has some misinformation, and the TD and AC decide that >> > although the correct information might lead the player more easily to >> > the successful line, in the absense of the misinformation, this line >> > should also have been found. >> >> I hate the word should here. > >Then what word to describe what I am trying to say ? could? was likely >to? no single expression can really express what I mean. How about "would"? >The fact is, that players should not stop playing bridge. While we're picking on words, let's remember what this means. Popular idiom aside, "stopping playing bridge" is NOT a synonym for playing badly, or for committing a blunder. A player who stops playing bridge is in violation of L74C6. The laws are not intended, and must not be used, to punish bad bridge. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 11 23:40:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:40:47 +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 XAA20638 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:40:41 +1000 Received: from client85e0.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.224] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zHTU0-0001oR-00; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:43:29 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Weinstein" Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:46:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddd8a$8c8b32c0$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 > ++==++ (Second extract from WBF Laws Committee minutes at Lille):- " In Law 92D there should be a comma after "contest)". The Law is interpreted to mean: a) that in a pairs event both members of a pair must concur in appealing; b) that in a team event an appeal requires the consent of the Captain (and not necessarily of the pair). " ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 00:23:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:23:37 +1000 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23040 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:23:31 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA18700 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:26:28 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA06376 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:25:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199809111425.KAA06376@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:25:55, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Additional Appeals. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Lille appeals that didn't appear in the bulletins may be found at HTML formatting by Yvan Calame. http://home.worldcom. ch/fsb/98wbc_app2858.html Text only by Chyah Burghard ftp://www.acbl. org/tournaments/wbf/lille/lappeals.txt -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 01:23:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:23:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA23267 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:23:29 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA26898 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA02685 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:26:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809111526.LAA02685@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme > judiciary ? All I can say is that this exposes a vast cultural difference between most Americans and most people in the rest of the world. Americans are instinctively distrustful (I am being diplomatic here, believe it or not.) of unlimited powers in any form. I cannot imagine an American even asking the above question except for perhaps rhetorical purposes. I am aware that most non-Americans have a very different view. I suspect most Americans are not aware of this. > A score has to be determined. > A Committee is set up, presumably of the best people you can find. Alas, "best people you can find" may not be very good. There are plenty of sad examples, even under the present rules. (There are quite likely more bad examples in North America than in the rest of the world.) > If you find it bad, vote against it, but for ACBL to say that it's in > the rules but we don't want it is simple stupid. What do you mean, vote against it? My designated representatives, the ACBL BoD, *did* vote against it, at least for our zone. What else would you have any of us do? (I *hope* the American representatives on the WBFLC tried to have the wording changed, but they would be in a difficult position if everyone else is happy with the current text. Allowing zones to opt out seems a reasonable compromise.) I don't think the ACBL would disagree with the concept of giving weighted scores when a single result seems inequitable. I know I wouldn't object. But blanket authority for an AC to assign whatever score it pleases, regardless of the other laws (which is what L12C3 *says*), is not something that Americans will accept. Does this clarify why there is a difference of opinion? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 02:14:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:14:45 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (cL8YNsRG9ttmW8uQRKEuiKYQCP6TyQIH@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23683 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:14:38 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA05874; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980909195317.007d0780@magi.com> <35F76F25.5834@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:14:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:28 AM -0400 9/10/98, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I do not know what the problem was during the fifth session. My guess is >that it was not a new problem, just a consequence of the problem in the >first session, manifesting this time at the other end of the movement. If >anyone can confirm or deny this I'd appreciate it. I spoke to one of the directors, who confirmed this. The directing staff knew in advance who would have sitouts during the final session. I'm guessing that this information did not reach the viewgraph room. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 02:56:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:56:00 +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 CAA23808 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:55:54 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA23027 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980911125807.007e9e10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:58:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809111526.LAA02685@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> From: Herman De Wael >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme >> judiciary ? Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 03:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:15:09 +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 DAA23891 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:14:59 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-149.access.net.il [192.116.204.149]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA15430; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:17:38 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35F95B22.DCF36EC1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:17:22 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Wildavsky CC: Tim Goodwin , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your excellency Mr. Wildavsky Dear Adam (as you prefer) I read the discussion here and I am not comfortable with most of the lawyeristic trials to interpret the laws involved. A priori I tell you again that I am a 101% disciple of Kaplan's doctrine . Accordingly , in such cases , after I understood there were BOTH irregularity and damage I try to analyze and decide if the irregularity was RELEVANT for the damage. The world RELEVANT is my translation to "through" - as appears in the laws- "connection"/"relationship" as I studied it in the articles and books. I'll consider to adjust score if and only if the irregularity was relevant to the damage . In appeal #1 , my humble opinion is that the damage was produced by East's pass after his partner's rdbl : if he bids 2Cl then there is no doubt for me that a west top player (not world expert) will bid immediately 4Sp .. no need to explain why... The AC's main aim is to discuss bridge problems , not laws. As a TD or as an AC's member I should decide immediately : the damage was a direct result of East's bidding BEFORE the irregularity occurred. By the way - the only Law which was not respected for this board, even after the law's adjustments !!! is "the law of total tricks". I should adjust +2 tricks for the astonishing clear purity of E-W's suits (they should know it - this is another reason why should be in 4S.....) , but there are 19 tricks , with 17 trumps and no fricky distribusion....(N-S can't know about the purity of their suits) . Hmmmmmm - you see this adjustment worked perfectly. Friendly Dany Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > At 11:18 AM -0400 9/10/98, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Suppose that given the misinformation there are three choices: A, B and C. > >There is a 60% change an expert will select A, a 20% chance an expert will > >select B and a 20% chance an expert will select C. However, if given the > >correct information, there is a 60% chance an expert will select A, a 30% > >chance an expert will select B and a 10% chance an expert will select C. > >If B is the winning choice, an expert is more likely to make the correct > >choice absent the misinformation. Does this mean there should be an > >adjustment if you were misinformed and selected A? (I know Adam to be an > >expert.) > > Thanks, Tim! I'd like to be able to suppose that everyone at the table at > the World Championships is an expert, but we know it's not so. Also do > remember that I was not at the table for Appeal 1. > > My short answer is that there should be an adjustment or adjustments under > Law 12C2, if and only if director or the AC judges that they are warranted > under the conditions described by Law 12C2. In the case you describe one > might guess that an adjustment would be made for the OS but not the NOS. > > I don't think it's needed in most instances, and you don't mention whether > it applies here, but remember the "kicker", LAW 72B1. > > >Also, suppose there are two choice: A and B. With the misinformation there > >is a 70% chance that an expert will select A and a 30% chance an expert > >will select B. Without the misinformation the chance of selecting A is 90% > >and the chance of selecting B is 10%. Suppose you select B after being > >misinformed. Should there be an adjustement? Shouldn't the committee take > >into account the error you made? > > Yes, there should be an adjustment. No, they should not take into account > the error, qua error. The Laws do not say they should take it into account, > and make perfect sense if they do not. The AC will take it into account as > the action chosen at the table when they consider, under Law 12C2, the > likelihood of a different action being chosen. > > >In Appeal #1 from Lille, the NOS side had a chance at a double shot. They > >could be reasonably sure they had been misinformed. > > If this were a consideration the AC should have mentioned it in their write-up. > > >They take what is > >probably an anti-percentage position knowing (thinking) that if they have > >been misinformed they will be able to make the right choice on appeal. > > If I judged such were the case I might look for a way under the Laws to > adjust the score only for the OS. > > >In Appeal #26 from Lille, it appears that a spade lead has the highest > >probability of success with or without the misinformation. And, that the > >correct information would have only slightly increased the likelyhood of a > >spade lead being a success. It does not seem to me that this slight > >increase should be enough for an adjustment to be made when the player made > >what appears to be a clearly inferior choice. > > No one's posted Appeal 26 to the list yet, and since it involves several of > us personally I was hoping to postpone it until we could settle some of the > issues involved in Appeal 1, which is surprisingly similar. > > If anyone wants to see Appeal 26 I'll be happy to mail it to you or to post > it now. > > AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 03:53:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:53:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23970 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 03:53:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zHXQp-0005jm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:56:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:00:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More appeals from Lille In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980911120211.00d9f844@worldcom.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > >Lille appeals that didnt appear in the bulletins may be found at > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98wbc_app2858.html Including the Oliver Twist hand. The poor pair that had joined up because the spouses play together, and had been ruled against for giving correct information earlier in the day [!!] then got ruled against by the TD for MI, and *their opponents* appealed because they wanted more! Read all about it! [What do you mean, which number? That would be far too easy!] I would like to thank Herman, Yvan, Chyah for making sure these write- ups were not lost - thirteen of them are mine, and it would have been an awful lot of work wasted otherwise. I also wrote eight articles, five of which were published. I expect to put all five on my Bridgepage and on RGB within a week. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 04:12:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 04:12:34 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (sX/FRbSo8vcCxvBSPEDg5M6GWLFkmLk2@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24036 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 04:12:27 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA20318; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F95B22.DCF36EC1@internet-zahav.net> References: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:08:10 -0400 To: Dany Haimovici From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:17 PM -0400 9/11/98, Dany Haimovici wrote: >Your excellency Mr. Wildavsky Wow - a first! >Dear Adam (as you prefer) I do - "Your excellency" would surely go to my head after a while. >I read the discussion here and I am not comfortable with most >of the lawyeristic trials to interpret the laws involved. We are trying to interpret the Laws, so we may indeed come off sounding like lawyers. It's a hazard. Since Kaplan was responsible for a good part of the Laws I expect to find his doctrines expressed there and I do. I think, however, that we must use his published doctrines to help us to interpret the Law, not in its stead. >A priori I tell you again that I am a 101% disciple of >Kaplan's doctrine . Accordingly , in such cases , after I >understood there were BOTH irregularity and damage I try to >analyze and decide if the irregularity was RELEVANT for the damage. >The world RELEVANT is my translation to "through" - as appears in >the laws- "connection"/"relationship" as I studied it in the >articles and books. I'll consider to adjust score if and only if >the irregularity was relevant to the damage. Fair enough. >In appeal #1 , my humble opinion is that the damage was produced >by East's pass after his partner's rdbl : if he bids 2Cl then >there is no doubt for me that a west top player (not world expert) >will bid immediately 4Sp .. no need to explain why... >The AC's main aim is to discuss bridge problems , not laws. >As a TD or as an AC's member I should decide immediately : >the damage was a direct result of East's bidding BEFORE >the irregularity occurred. We could argue with East's bidding, but that is not the committee's purpose. The Laws do not intend to provide redress only to players who have not already made a mistake, nor to penalize those who give misinformation only when it is given to opponents who play perfectly. Suppose East were able to argue convincingly that in the methods he was playing XX was a better call than 2C. Perhaps they play 2C as non-forcing and 3C as weak. Would you now adjust, or would you say the damage was caused by EW's poor methods? I do not believe the Laws allow us to even consider the question of how the NOS should have played before the infraction. In Appeal #1 the damage may have been caused in part by East's bidding, but it was certainly caused in part by the MI. Since the damage was caused in part by the MI, Law 40 is satisfied, and we must continue on to Law 12C2. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 04:59:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 04:59:35 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24162 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 04:59:29 +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 MAA26360 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809111901.MAA26360@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: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:00:43 -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 > > Grattan Endicott > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Weinstein > > > ++==++ (Second extract from WBF Laws Committee > minutes at Lille):- > " In Law 92D there should be a comma after "contest)". > The Law is interpreted to mean: > a) that in a pairs event both members of a pair must > concur in appealing; > b) that in a team event an appeal requires the consent > of the Captain (and not necessarily of the pair). " > ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ > Please clarify: If the Captain is involved as a player at the table, I presume this means he can appeal without his partner's concurrence, thereby consenting to his own appeal. Right? I do not take this to mean that a Captain not involved at the table can inititate an appeal and carry on with it alone; someone at the table has to be part of the appeal, either initiating it or consenting to it. Is that correct? Forgive me if I'm being a little dense, I just want to be sure I have it right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 05:13:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 05:13:56 +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 FAA24223 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 05:13:50 +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 MAA28682; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809111916.MAA28682@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:15:39 -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: Tim Goodwin > > >> From: Herman De Wael > >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme > >> judiciary ? > > Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. > > Tim > Bobby Wolff's AC, Appeal 27. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 06:13:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 06:13:46 +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 GAA24428 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 06:13:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA07283; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:16:28 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35F9850C.3F338AA6@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:16:12 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Wildavsky CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Adam Adam Wildavsky wrote: > ......... > > >In appeal #1 , my humble opinion is that the damage was produced > >by East's pass after his partner's rdbl : if he bids 2Cl then ...hmmmm Sorry - I meant West'pass after east's rdbl. > >there is no doubt for me that a west top player (not world expert) .......and here should be East top player..... > >will bid immediately 4Sp .. no need to explain why... > >The AC's main aim is to discuss bridge problems , not laws. > >As a TD or as an AC's member I should decide immediately : > >the damage was a direct result of East's bidding BEFORE ....and her West's bidding .... who passed > >the irregularity occurred. > > We could argue with East's bidding, but that is not the committee's ...i don't argue with East's bidding (holding xxx-jxxxx-x-AKQxx) > purpose. The Laws do not intend to provide redress only to players who have > not already made a mistake, nor to penalize those who give misinformation > only when it is given to opponents who play perfectly. ...and don't punish anyone for not playing perfect ..... > Suppose East were able to argue convincingly that in the methods he was > playing XX was a better call than 2C. Perhaps they play 2C as non-forcing > and 3C as weak. Would you now adjust, or would you say the damage was > caused by EW's poor methods? I do not believe the Laws allow us to ....I accept this method as the best (not only because I play it !!), but from now on , I think we disagree : For me as East redouble shows a shape of 2/3S- 3/4H - 2/1D -5/4C and 10-11 HCP or something similar ..... The moment West passed - I take him as 5/6S - 2/3H- 3/2D- 3/4C.. so as west I see 4 quick loosers .. MUST be silent.... This is why my opinion is that the damage is result of West's pass. The MI could influence West's decision , but IMHO it was too late, so I take the "damage composition" as 95% West's bid and 5% MI. As I understand you believe it should be 50%- 50% ..... If this is your opinion , ok , but we don't agree upon. even > consider the question of how the NOS should have played before the > infraction. > > In Appeal #1 the damage may have been caused in part by East's bidding, but > it was certainly caused in part by the MI. Since the damage was caused in > part by the MI, Law 40 is satisfied, and we must continue on to Law 12C2. If I should consider the MI as RELEVANT to the damage , then we should not have doubt to assign adjusted score , at least -620 for NS and +620 or 650 for E-W (now we must judge the skills of East - if to play it safety or for top in MP...). Dany > > AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 06:38:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 06:38:31 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24524 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 06:38:24 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id QAA08094; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F9850C.3F338AA6@internet-zahav.net> References: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:41:17 -0400 To: Dany Haimovici From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:16 PM -0400 9/11/98, Dany Haimovici wrote: >The MI could influence West's decision , but IMHO it was too late, >so I take the "damage composition" as 95% West's bid and 5% MI. >As I understand you believe it should be 50%- 50% ..... >If this is your opinion , ok , but we don't agree upon. No, if you think that I certainly have not made myself clear. I believe that in order to consider an adjustment that the MI must have influenced the NOS to go wrong by some, perhaps small, amount. I don't believe the amount matters, only the direction of the influence. Here fewer diamonds in the North hand clearly makes bidding 4S less attractive, not more attractive. How much less attractive? Under Law 40 there's no need to ask. By passing the Law 40 test we are not yet committed to adjusting the score for either side. For that we must refer to Law 12C2. Law 40C reads "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." It does not say "solely through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does it say "mostly through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does it say "substantially through its opponents' failure to explain". I understand its intent to be that, as you say, the misexplanation must be relevant to the damage, or as Kaplan put it the damage must be conseqent to the misexplanation. There is no quantitative test here, nor should there be one. To help understand, put yourself in the position of the player in receipt of the MI. If you'd have taken a more successful action with the correct information there will be no doubt in your mind that you've been damaged by the MI, and you'll be right. Since the director and committee cannot know what you would have done, only what you might have done, they can only look at the bridge evidence and see whether the correct information would have made the winning decision more attractive. If they judge it would have, to any degree, they must move on to Law 12. >If I should consider the MI as RELEVANT to the damage , then >we should not have doubt to assign adjusted score , at least -620 >for NS and +620 or 650 for E-W (now we must judge the skills >of East - if to play it safety or for top in MP...). Law12C2 make this relatively easy. The OS gets -650 if it is at all probable that the NOS would have big game and made an overtrick in the absence of the MI. The NOS gets +650 if it's "likely", where, in the ACBL, "likely" in this context has been interpreted to mean at least one chance in three. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 07:31:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 07:31:43 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24753 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 07:31:37 +1000 Received: from modem117.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.245] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zHaps-0005S8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:34:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:07:52 +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: Adam Wildavsky > To: Herman De Wael > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 > Date: 09 September 1998 13:08 > > At 6:09 AM -0400 9/9/98, Herman De Wael wrote: > >OK, in future I shall write : minisinformation, damage non-consequent, > >no adjustment. > > > >OK ? > > Definitely! > ++==++ Well, maybe! Third extract from minutes of Lille meetings of WBFLC :- " Procedures for awarding assigned adjusted scores. There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). " ++==++ [ Note: formal notification of the minutes has reached or will shortly reach all NBOs ]. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 07:31:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 07:31:38 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24747 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 07:31:32 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:34:26 -0700 Message-ID: <35F997F3.6E22B478@home.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:36:51 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: <199809102302.TAA02173@cfa183.harvard.edu> <35F8FBB3.DB0D678B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > I would like to see our list get in agreement on the WBF handling of > things, then let the Americans ponder over what they shall do in the > absense of L12C3. Agreed, list ? Agree that we should seperate-out the 12C3 discussions as a seperate thread. > Let's look at it from a different point: The field, of 100 tables, has > no MI, so 60% of the field have done A, 40% B. This results in 70MP to > those that have chosen A, 20MP to those that have chosen B. > The average score for the players without MI is 60%x70MP + 40%x20MP = > 50MP (as expected). > With the MI, 40% of the players would still choose A, and score 70MP, > but 60% would choose B, and 20MP. > Average score for players with MI : 40%x70MP + 60%x20MP = 40MP, or a > "damage" of 10MP (10%). > I feel that this should be the compensation to all NOS with MI, even if > they DID get it right after all! > > That would mean I would give this player, who got it wrong after MI, a > final score of 20MP + 10MP = 30MP. > > How would this sound in L12C3 terms : 30MP = 20%x70MP+80%x20MP. While we're at it though, I don't think L12C3 should be used as venue for probability-calculations, but rather a more general way for ACs to dish out "equity" where it is difficult to achieve by a strict application of L12C2. An interesting discussion would actually be if L12C2 and 3 are not in fact in competition, and having C3 one could do away with C2?? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 08:09:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:09:38 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24855 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:09:33 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:12:29 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9A0DF.16A8C6FC@home.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:14:55 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yvan Calame CC: blml Subject: Re: More appeals from Lille References: <1.5.4.32.19980911120211.00d9f844@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > > Lille appeals that didnt appear in the bulletins may be found at > > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98wbc_app2858.html > > Yvan Calame Salut Yvan You're the best!! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 08:17:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:17:15 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24885 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:17:09 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:20:06 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9A2A8.BBAA7320@home.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:22:32 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott , blml Subject: Re: Controlled psyches References: <01bddd7a$c8950580$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > ++==++ Having got the bulk of the NBO distribution > under way I think I may begin to look at some of the > WBF Laws Committee minutes from Lille. Let us begin > with this extract:- > > "Psychic Bids and Plays. > Guidance on Psychics issued by the WBF with its > Conditions of Contest was studied. The Committee > held that the statement in its first paragraph > represented the law inaccurately. > > The Committee draws attention to the manner in which > the laws deal with psychic calls and plays. These are > entirely legal so long as they are not based on a partnership > understanding. A so-say "psychic call" (or play) which is > based on a partnership understanding is not properly called > "psychic" - it is part of the methods of the partnership in > question and subject to the regulations of the sponsoring > organisation authorized by Laws 40D and 40E. > > The Committee affirms that a psychic call or play which is > evidently identified by the course of the auction or play, as > a matter of general bridge knowledge, is not the subject of > an understanding peculiar to that partnership and is a > legitimate ploy. Other than this an understanding may be > created in the partnership by explicit discussion or by the > implicit learning from repeated partnership experience out > of which it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall > and be influenced by earlier occurrences. " ++==++ > > ~~ I await reaction with interest. Grattan. ~~ This is right-on, imo. I'd hope this could also be applied within ACBL, since it would help getting rid of a lot of misunderstandings (partly caused by well-meant but misdirected articles in the Bulletin), like "safe" psyches are good and OK but "wild/crazy/risky" psyches are bad, should be disallowed etc, when in fact it is just the other way around! Good work! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 08:34:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:48 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24928 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:34:43 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:37:34 -0700 Message-ID: <35F9A6C0.D9D9B78C@home.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:40:00 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille References: <199809111916.MAA28682@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: > > ---------- > > >> From: Herman De Wael > > >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to > a supreme > > >> judiciary ? > > > > Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. > > > > Tim > > > Bobby Wolff's AC, Appeal 27. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Sshhhhhhh.....guys, (whispering now) we are not supposed to mention his name in a bad light anymore....ssshhhhhhhhhh. Maybe we use a secret "nickname"?? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 08:42:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:42:11 +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 IAA24955 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:42:05 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA13010 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA03102 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:45:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809112245.SAA03102@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I would like to see our list get in agreement on the WBF handling of > things, then let the Americans ponder over what they shall do in the > absense of L12C3. Agreed, list ? OK with me. > I would prefer not to use percentages like 90%. I think the Laws > intended us to discount small probabilities and so I would always > calculate with 100% when the probability is 90% or more. I don't think this matters very often, and I'm happy to let 90%=100% until we have the general principles straight. I can think of cases where it might matter, so perhaps we will need to come back to this. > Only players that have chosen B [the losing option] in the first > place will be asking for a change. Yes. > Let's look at it from a different point: The field, of 100 tables, has > no MI, so 60% of the field have done A, 40% B. This results in 70MP to > those that have chosen A, 20MP to those that have chosen B. > The average score for the players without MI is 60%x70MP + 40%x20MP = > 50MP (as expected). > With the MI, 40% of the players would still choose A, and score 70MP, > but 60% would choose B, and 20MP. > Average score for players with MI : 40%x70MP + 60%x20MP = 40MP, or a > "damage" of 10MP (10%). This is without doubt the right approach, but I am not sure the numbers are coming out right. I shall have to reconsider. My procedure may have been correct, or we may both be wrong. (Or right! I am not sure, without further consideration, whether we disagree or not.) At any rate, I think we agree that the compensation should be such that (on average) immediately after the MI, the NOS was no worse off than a pair who never received MI at all. > I feel that this should be the compensation to all NOS with MI, even if > they DID get it right after all! No, I don't think extra compensation to the pairs who got it right can be proper. (Maybe that's not what you meant?) The pairs who have MI and go right anyway have not been damaged. And as a purely practical matter, they will not ask for redress, as you noted above, so we cannot compensate them even if we wished to do so. The question is how much to compensate a NOS who receive MI, might have made the right decision anyway, but fail to do so. It may be Tuesday before I can respond further, but let me see what I can come up with on careful consideration. (Perhaps I'll email Herman privately instead of inflicting this on the whole list. I expect he and I can agree on a formula if we can agree on the assumptions to make.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 10:10:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:10:14 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25135 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:10:06 +1000 Received: from modem100.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.100] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zHdJF-0002Ov-00; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:13:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:04:58 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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 > To: Bridge Laws discussion group > Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants > Date: 11 September 1998 20:00 > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linda Weinstein > > > > > ++==++ (Second extract from WBF Laws Committee > > minutes at Lille):- > > " In Law 92D there should be a comma after "contest)". > > The Law is interpreted to mean: > > a) that in a pairs event both members of a pair must > > concur in appealing; > > b) that in a team event an appeal requires the consent > > of the Captain (and not necessarily of the pair). " > > ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ > > > Please clarify: > +++ As between a team, the Director, and the Appeal Committee, the only thing of interest is what the Captain decides. Any difference of opinion between the Captain and the players is a domestic issue within the team and not the concern of the AC. If 'Miss A' is both a player and the Captain of the team the two functions stand apart and must be distinguished; when deciding whether an appeal shall be made she is acting as Captain, not as a player. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 12:52:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:52:59 +1000 Received: from smtp2.mailsrvcs.net (smtp2.gte.net [207.115.153.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA25401 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:52:53 +1000 Received: from mike (1Cust19.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.19]) by smtp2.mailsrvcs.net with ESMTP id VAA08163 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:54:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <008701bdddf8$90d44420$1369ffd0@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: Subject: Lillie Appeal 33 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:53:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't understand this ruling: From http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98wbc_app2858.html Appeal No. 33 Reported by David Stevenson (England, GB) Rosenblum Teams K-O Round 1 Croatia v France North/South: Spiljak/Vukelic East/West: Renouard/Farahad Board 11 Love All Dealer South NORTH J J 10 4 K Q 10 8 7 10 9 7 3 WEST EAST A Q 8 7 4 K 9 6 6 5 K 8 3 6 4 3 9 2 K Q J A 8 6 4 2 SOUTH 10 5 3 2 A Q 9 7 2 A J 5 5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - 1S Pass 2C Pass 2D Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Result at table: 2D doubled plus two, N/S +380. Facts: 2C was alerted on the N/E side of the screen, and described as a transfer, which is clearly correct per the N/S convention cards. South turned the alert card over and back again, but did not receive an acknowledgement from West. TD's Decision: N/S +130. Conditions of Contest 16.2. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: West did not attend the hearing. According to the Appeals Form, West said he was in thought and did not see South's "flip" of the alert card. He said that he did not find the pass of 2 strange because some pairs play non-forcing 2/1. The Committee: 16.2 of the Conditions of Contest includes the following: "the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent." It is clear, that an alert has only been made correctly when the opponent acknowledges it. So in this case, South did not alert West correctly. Dissenting opinion (Rich Colker, David Stevenson): It seems even more likely that West will pass if he knows the diamonds are on his left than on his right; it is difficult to see how the misinformation affected his pass. At least for East/West, it would seem right to leave them with their 380. This would certainly be proper in a matchpoint or VP-scored event. The Committee ruled: N/S +130. Conditions of Contest 16.2. Deposit returned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- How does NS get to play diamonds if West is sufficiently damaged by the failure to alert to assume he would bid over 2DX? East's double can't be cancelled so if West were to bid spades it seems to me that 2 or 3S making 3 at least qualifies as at all probable if not likely. Three or four diamonds making 4 (or 5) might be deemed likely. I don't disagree with the dissent. I just don't see that the committee went far enough if an adjustment is warrented. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 17:15:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:15:43 +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 RAA25672 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:15:37 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h53.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.56) id LAA17444; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:18:32 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35FABB06.3284@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:18:47 -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: Lille Appeal 1 References: <199809112245.SAA03102@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Steve Willner wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > I would like to see our list get in agreement on the WBF handling of > > things, then let the Americans ponder over what they shall do in the > > absense of L12C3. Agreed, list ? > > OK with me. As I see L12C3 - it's wording is too harsh: absolute power has newer brought only good results. Americans are right and several examples from Lille's appeals proved it once more. Grattan's (and WFBLC's) intentions were nice but "road to the Hell is paved by nice intentions"... For my opinion it may be better if L12C3 is interpretated for purpose correction of L12C2: in cases where (under L12C2) there are several favourable LAs for NOS and several unfavourable for OS - AC may vary TD's decision by taking into account these favourable/unfavourable LAs (I guess that practically there are 2-3 such LA). Such interpretation will limit AC's power and will not contradict with L12C2. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 20:08:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:08:12 +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 UAA25909 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:08:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-167.access.net.il [192.116.204.167]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA08248; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:10:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35FA489B.8D1AEBE0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:10:35 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Wildavsky CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe we both agree as follow : Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > At 4:16 PM -0400 9/11/98, Dany Haimovici wrote: ......... > Law 40C reads > > "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' > failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an > adjusted score." ...... > I understand its intent to be that, as you say, the misexplanation must be > relevant to the damage, or as Kaplan put it the damage must be conseqent to > the misexplanation. There is no quantitative test here, nor should there be > one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The TD is in charge to decide if the irregularity was relevant or not to the damage ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For the case discussed in appeal 1 , my opinion is NOT (and if we don't agree upon the concrete case - ok for me - it can happen). .... > If they judge it would have, to > any degree, they must move on to Law 12. > > >If I should consider the MI as RELEVANT to the damage , then > >we should not have doubt to assign adjusted score , at least -620 > >for NS and +620 or 650 for E-W (now we must judge the skills > >of East - if to play it safety or for top in MP...). > > Law12C2 make this relatively easy. The OS gets -650 if it is at all > probable that the NOS would have big game and made an overtrick in the absence of the MI. I agree for -650 to N-S..... > The NOS gets +650 if it's "likely", where, in the ACBL, > "likely" in this context has been interpreted to mean at least one chance > in three. For one chance in three , I would agree......... But again - as we agreed before , the adjustment according to L12C , will work only if the TD - or AC - decides by L40 that the MI was relevant to the damage . Friendly Dany > > AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 12 20:54:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:54:02 +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 UAA26014 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:53:56 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA15803 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:56:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 12 Sep 98 11:55 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille 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: <35F8105E.BB521B45@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme > judiciary ? Why would it be unwise to give unlimited power to do harm to a body that is accountable to no one? Those already on the road to hell need only consult the paving. Having seen some of the more controversial rulings from Lille might I suggest that all ACs should include an experienced TD with a power of veto on the ruling. Better to convene a second AC than live with the travesties that seem to occur otherwise. BTW, in appeal 23 (I think) Bobby Wolff appeared to overrule a TD on a point of law (obligation to volunteer information). Did the TD in question concur on this? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 01:51:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:51:08 +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 BAA28954 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:51:00 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.75]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 2922600 ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:51:06 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980912115650.007bcb00@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:56:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Gordon Bower 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: and David subsequently posted: > We must RTFLB. Now, some of the answers to these questions have >quoted L26C [mixed L26A and L26B] but there is no such animal. So any >answers based on L26C are incorrect. L26A starts "If ..." and L26B says >"For other ..." so in each case your first decision must be whether the >case is L26A or L26B. [snip] >>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. > > Spades are specified: spades are not specified by another bid from the >same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a spade. > >>b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. > > Spades are specified: spades are specified by another bid from the >same player: L26A1: no lead penalty. The example problem and its family members have been bothering me for two weeks now. I am pleased that David agrees that the call *did* relate to a specific suit, spades, so 26A applies. The fact that another (non-specified) suit is indicated as well doesn't change that. Still, I was uncomfortable enough with the conclusion, no lead penalty on 2b, e.g., to wonder whether I'd misunderstood the intent of the law. I still don't like the conclusion, and I suspect that it was discomfort with this conclusion that led to the creation of "26C". Imo, Law 26, as written, is clearly insuffficient to deal with the ramifications of the problem resulting in 2b. However, there is no particular reason why the answer to the *question* - what is the specified lead penalty - has to be the same as the answer to the *problem*. Fortunately, there are other laws that may come to the rescue. After east has gotten in the information that he holds a minor for "free", west finds a somewhat unusual, killing, minor suit lead - how do you rule? Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 02:03:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:03:34 +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 CAA29153 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:03:29 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28396 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA17969; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:08:36 -0700 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:08:36 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199809121608.JAA17969@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: | BTW, in appeal 23 (I think) Bobby Wolff appeared to overrule a TD on a | point of law (obligation to volunteer information). Did the TD in question | concur on this? Moreover, he appears to have overruled his committee. According to the writeup, two of the five members left without ruling. Two of the five members were "minority" votes. That leaves Wolff alone to have chosen the final ruling. Something is seriously wrong with that one. New question: sometimes it becomes obvious that a committee member is biased and cannot provide a fair ruling. According to the laws, there's no way to replace AC members. Yes, in practice, biased members are supposed to remove themselves, but what if one doesn't want to? --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 Sun Sep 13 03:29:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:29:11 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29613 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:29:03 +1000 Received: from modem2.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.2] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zHtWi-0001LH-00; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:32:00 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:29:43 +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 "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 To: Grattan Endicott Subject: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: 19 August 1998 13:24 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 04:29:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 04:29:57 +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 EAA29862 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 04:29:49 +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 LAA09985 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Lille Appeals Case #35 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:31:55 -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 Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of the AC he chaired for Case #35. No need to show the hand or bidding, it's fairly simple: E/W bid 4 (typo for +620) For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the scores of +450 and 50. The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 05:09:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:09:58 +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 FAA00232 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:09:52 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11369 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809121912.PAA13629@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of > the AC he chaired for Case #35. > No need to show the hand or bidding, it's fairly simple: E/W bid 4 > (typo for +620) > For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the > scores of +450 and 50. > The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 > and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) > = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). There's a certain logic to this. E-W were damaged because North bid on over South's hesitation, and N-S thus played in 5H instead of letting E-W play in 4S. This damaged E-W to the extent that they would have been +50 in 5H rather than +620 in 4S. Subsequent to this infraction (and irrelevant to it), E-W misdefended to allow the contract to make, and the committee decided that they caused themselves to be -450 rather than +50 as a result of their own bad defense. This appears to be an attempt to achieve equity under Law 12C3. It wouldn't be allowed under the general rules for adjustments since the only contract allowed under those rules is 4S, and 4S is unbeatable. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 05:10:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:10:24 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00246 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:10:18 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199809121910.FAA00246@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:11:57 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA223217516; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:11:56 +0200 Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:11:56 +0200 (CES) Cc: thomas.dehn@okay.net Reply-To: af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de In-Reply-To: <35F9A6C0.D9D9B78C@home.com> from "Jan Kamras" at Sep 11, 1998 03:40:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Jan Kamras: > > Sshhhhhhh.....guys, (whispering now) we are not supposed to mention his > name in a bad light anymore....ssshhhhhhhhhh. Maybe we use a secret I suggest the Nickname 'the BOB' (not to be confused with Bobby). The BOB is already known as an evil entity which wants to destroy the fun parts of our live, see rec.games.comics.marvel.universe. Thomas > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 05:11:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:11:42 +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 FAA00265 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 05:11:37 +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 MAA15303 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809121914.MAA15303@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Lille Appeals Case #35 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:13:45 -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 Sorry, all for the incomplete e-mail preceding this one. Accidentally hit a sending hot key, which puts an e-mail in the outbox, but MS Mail has the habit of sending out mail from the outbox without being told to do so. Starting over: Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of the AC he chaired for Case #35. No need to show the hand or bidding, it's a common situation: With E/W vulnerable, E/W bid a makeable 4S and N/S bid 5H, making, after UI suggested a bid over 4S. The defense against 5H was evidently questionable ("The Committee had some doubts about the defence.") The committee ruled that passing 4S was a logical alternative, and assigned scores: For N/S: -620 for 4S made. For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the scores of +450 and 50. (This use of +/- signs is confusing. Why not +620, -450 and +50?) The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). I take that to mean 523.8 - (419.5-122.4) = 226.7 All the discussion of L12C3 between Steve Willner and Herman has been difficult for me to follow, and we apparently have here an example of how L12C3 is to be applied to "do equity." If Herman can explain this AC decision to the satisfaction of ACBL-land, maybe L12C3 will come to have greater acceptance hereabouts. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 06:55:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 06:55:26 +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 GAA00449 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 06:55:20 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h16.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.57) id AAA17328; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:58:14 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35FB7B21.7B61@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:58:25 -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: Lille Appeals Case #35 References: <199809121912.PAA13629@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Grabiner wrote: > > Marvin L. French writes: > > > Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of > > the AC he chaired for Case #35. > > This appears to be an attempt to achieve equity under Law 12C3. It > wouldn't be allowed under the general rules for adjustments since the > only contract allowed under those rules is 4S, and 4S is unbeatable. And just now we have received Grattan's message from Minutes: "The Committee (WBFLC) remarked that the right to redress for a NOS is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action etc." Might be, left hand did not know what was right hand doing? Or these explanations are for us, grey players (TDs) only, for making us calm? As I understood - AC at the Championship did not execute according with direct WBFLC's decision. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 07:27:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:27:44 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (ItevrgzpazgHawx/J7Mx+eLOvW1TGsqu@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00497 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:27:38 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA23861; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35F65A29.5A766E00@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:30:27 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:36 AM -0400 9/9/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen >action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more >likely to choose B, which is more successfull. > >If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then >this translates to, without the information, the player will still >choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. >I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, >1% correction. If possible I'd like to keep the L12C3 discussion separate. Playing in the ACBL I have no experience with L12C3. I was under the impression, though, that it would be used seldom, and then only to provide equity where the committee believes L12C2 fails to, or where the committee cannot agree on how to apply the 12C2 criteria. Since L12C2 can only be used by committees, not directors, I'd assumed it must be used seldom. Otherwise a pair could go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more favorable than the one assigned by the directors. If I'm mistaken please let me know. Also, in particular, please let me know if you think 12C3 figured in any way in the committee decisions in cases 1 and 26 in Lille, and whether you think it should have. As an aside, I'd feel much better about these writeups if they consistently mentioned the individual Laws the committee applied in reaching its decision. Any disagreement? AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 07:53:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:53:00 +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 HAA00532 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:52:54 +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 OAA06984 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809122155.OAA06984@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Lille Appeals Case #35 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:53:35 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes (in the ungarbled version, not the one that David read): > With E/W vulnerable, E/W bid a makeable 4S and N/S bid 5H, making, after UI suggested a bid over 4S. The defense against 5H was evidently questionable ("The Committee had some doubts about the defence.") The committee ruled that passing 4S was a logical alternative, and assigned scores: For N/S: -620 for 4S made. For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the scores of +450 and 50. (This use of +/- signs is confusing. Why not +620, -450 and +50?) The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). > There's a certain logic to this. E-W were damaged because North > bid on over South's hesitation, and N-S thus played in 5H instead of > letting E-W play in 4S. This damaged E-W to the extent that they > would have been +50 in 5H rather than +620 in 4S. > > Subsequent to this infraction (and irrelevant to it), E-W > misdefended to allow the contract to make, and the committee > decided that they caused themselves to be -450 rather than +50 > as a result of their own bad defense. The AC said they had "some doubts" about the defense, so "misdefended" does not seem to be the right word. > > This appears to be an attempt to achieve equity under Law 12C3. > It wouldn't be allowed under the general rules for adjustments since > the only contract allowed under those rules is 4S, and 4S is > unbeatable. > Well, we better show the deal after all: Vulnerability: E-W Dealer: South S- K5 H- AQJ72 D- 6 C- KJT85 S- A98432 S- T76 H- K9 H- 6 D- Q754 D- AK1098 C- 7 C- Q432 S- QJ H- T8543 D- J32 C- A96 West North East South (usual directions) Pass 2S 3H 4S Pass (1) Pass 5C Pass 5H All pass (1) Disputed hesitation The TD assigned a score of 4S making ten tricks, both sides. So what was the "questionable defense"? I wish the writeup had detailed it, as it is hard to see how E/W could misdefend hurtfully after the stated ace of diamonds, spade to the ace, unblock by North. North surely would play East for the queen of clubs. Speculation: East covered the jack of clubs, and the AC thought declarer might well have played West for that card without the cover. If that's what happened, the AC decision becomes a little understandable, even to me. However, I was under the impression that even if E/W had revoked after North cashes the ace of hearts, allowing 5H to make, they would still get full redress. Isn't it only when an egregious error causes a superior score to be missed that no redress is given the NOS? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 08:36:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:36:51 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00693 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:36:45 +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 SAA14665 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809122239.SAA17171@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199809122155.OAA06984@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Well, we better show the deal after all: > Vulnerability: E-W > Dealer: South > S- K5 > H- AQJ72 > D- 6 > C- KJT85 > S- A98432 S- T76 > H- K9 H- 6 > D- Q754 D- AK1098 > C- 7 C- Q432 > S- QJ > H- T8543 > D- J32 > C- A96 > West North East South (usual directions) > Pass > 2S 3H 4S Pass (1) > Pass 5C Pass 5H > All pass > (1) Disputed hesitation > The TD assigned a score of 4S making ten tricks, both sides. > So what was the "questionable defense"? I wish the writeup had > detailed it, as it is hard to see how E/W could misdefend hurtfully > after the stated ace of diamonds, spade to the ace, unblock by > North. North surely would play East for the queen of clubs. My guess is that the spade at trick two is itself the questionable defense. If East continues diamonds, declarer cannot both finesse East for the CQ and take the heart finesse. However, I don't see this as a sufficiently bad play to forfeit the right to redress; give West the SK rather than the HK and declarer can discard both losing spades on the clubs if the SAK aren't cashed immediately. > However, I was under the impression that even if E/W had revoked > after North cashes the ace of hearts, allowing 5H to make, they > would still get full redress. Isn't it only when an egregious error > causes a superior score to be missed that no redress is given the > NOS? I like the principle applied here, although not its application. If 4S had been going down, then E-W were not damaged by N-S getting to an unmakable 5H, and there should be no adjustment if 5H makes because of an egregious error. With 4S making, E-W were damaged by N-S getting to 5H, and are entitled to full redress for that damage, but not to any redress resulting from their own egregious error. In this case, I don't see what the egregious error was. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 11:10:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:10:59 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01009 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:10:52 +1000 Received: from modem45.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.45] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zI0jd-0007Rt-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:13:50 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:59:57 +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 "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 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced > Date: 11 September 1998 03:15 > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > and DWS wrote > > Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the > time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the > time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could > gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a > weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". > ++++ I have not been following this thread. Is Law 16C2 involved ? ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 11:10:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:10:57 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01008 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:10:49 +1000 Received: from modem45.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.45] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zI0ja-0007Rt-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:13:47 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:26:01 +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: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 21 May 1998 18:06 > > > Fair enough, but I don't see how this applies. The convention > definition seems crystal clear to me. The problem is that the result > is so astonishing that nobody believes what the definition says ++==++ Fifth extract from Minutes of WBFLC meetings in Lille. " Definition of 'Convention' Consideration was given to the definition of 'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than the one named. " ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:01:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:01:49 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03864 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:01:43 +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 BAA12804 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809130804.BAA12804@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:01:30 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id BAA12804 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > Steve Willner writes: > >=20 > >=20 > > Fair enough, but I don't see how this applies. The convention > > definition seems crystal clear to me. The problem is that the result > > is so astonishing that nobody believes what the definition says >=20 > ++=3D=3D++ Fifth extract from Minutes of WBFLC meetings in Lille. >=20 > " Definition of 'Convention' >=20 > Consideration was given to the definition of 'convention'. The > Committee held the definition in the laws to be adequate. In > writing the definition the intention was not to deem it conventional > if a natural opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general > bridge knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than the one > named. " ~~ Grattan ~~ =20 ++=3D=3D++ >=20 The part of the definition that apparently is ambiguous is: 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. The words "meaning other than willingness to play" have been variously interpreted. They could use a restatement (unofficial, of course, just to clarify the intent).=20 I was under the impression that some time back there was an authoritative statement from someone saying that the parenthetical portion was to be changed to read: (or, in the case of a pass, double, or redouble, in the last denomination named). Accordingly, I incorporate that into the following clarifying restatement of the definition: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey a willingness to play in the denomination named (or, in the case of a pass, double, or redouble, in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. I'm not sure about the "pass," which is treated elsewhere in the Laws (L30C), but that is a side issue. Please note that the French version of the Laws agrees with my restatement: "...ne montre pas l'intention de jouer dans la d=E9nomination faite..." On my word of honor I looked that up *after* I wrote my version. Instead of a literal translation from English to French, some translator decided on clarity, which is said to be a virtue of French, and the reason it is (or was) "the language of diplomacy." Now, there remains a problem. Neither the French definition nor the restated English definition catches the conventions that name a playable denomination while also saying something specific about one or more other denominations. I don't know how to fit that into the restatement, so I add a sentence: A bid that is not otherwise a convention becomes one if it conveys something specific about a denomination other than the one named. No doubt that could be improved ("something specific"?), but you get the idea.=20 Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) =09 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:04:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:04:40 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03878 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:04:34 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:07:33 -0700 Message-ID: <35FB7DD6.97FDAB8@home.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:09:58 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lillie Appeal 33 References: <008701bdddf8$90d44420$1369ffd0@mike> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: > How does NS get to play diamonds if West is sufficiently damaged by the > failure to alert to assume > he would bid over 2DX? East's double can't be cancelled so if West were to > bid spades it seems to me > that 2 or 3S making 3 at least qualifies as at all probable if not likely. > Three or four diamonds making 4 (or 5) > might be deemed likely. > > I don't disagree with the dissent. I just don't see that the committee went > far enough if an adjustment is > warrented. What a coincidence (?) - 33 was the 1st in the new set (28-58) where I had serious problems. Indeed, both TD and AC gave just about the only ruling that is NOT possible, namely that NS play 2D undoubled! East acted on correct info all the time, so how can one change anything up to and including east's double? The only question is West's action. My opinion is that West should have raised a couple of eyebrows already when 2D was passed, and certainly before passing pard's T/OX. The "explanation" that "some pairs play NF 2/1" is somewhat pathetic. West had an opening, opponent's were in a 2/1-sequence after a 1st hand opener, pard can act voluntarily over 2D (risking the 3-level), and West thinks everything is just fine?? At the same time, it is South's responsability to make sure the screen-mate is aware of the alert, and therefore some adjustment against N/S seems warranted. Since I believe both in the "reasonable self-protection" principle, and that the correct alert procedure shall be used, I'd rule MI and adjust NS score to -110 (2S= by W) but let the table-score (-380) stand for EW (it was West's laziness, not the MI, that was responsible for the damage). Frankly though, I'd live with any combination of EW -380 and NS -110. It seems totally clear that NS +130 is the only result NOT possible. PS: I look at who was on the AC and - surprise, surprise! Tks (again) for the dissending voices. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:59:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:48 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA04032 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:38 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-110.uunet.be [194.7.13.110]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14634 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FA3554.6F2C97E4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:48:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809111916.MAA28682@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: > > ---------- > > From: Tim Goodwin > > > > >> From: Herman De Wael > > >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to > a supreme > > >> judiciary ? > > > > Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. > > > > Tim > > > Bobby Wolff's AC, Appeal 27. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Better reply than 23, in any case. But again, what is so terribly wrong with giving the AC the power to gicvce this kind of ruling ? Without L12C3, the AC might well have given a complete -100 to some side, which you may find even more terrible. Again, the problem is not with the power the AC has to award scores like this, but with your perceived opinion that he score given is not equitable. If you think the AC gives incorrect rulings under L12C3, then change its members, but don't take L12C3 from them ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:59:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:53 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA04034 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:41 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-110.uunet.be [194.7.13.110]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14644 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FA3568.D6294666@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:48:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.5.32.19980911125807.007e9e10@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > >> From: Herman De Wael > >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme > >> judiciary ? > > Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. > > Tim Which has nothing to do with L12C3. The AC decided there was an infraction. The AC, or its chairman, may have got that wrong. But there is no problem here with too much power to the AC! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:59:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:54 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA04040 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-110.uunet.be [194.7.13.110]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14648 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:02:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FA36CE.83985B9C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:54:38 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809102302.TAA02173@cfa183.harvard.edu> <35F8FBB3.DB0D678B@village.uunet.be> <35F997F3.6E22B478@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > While we're at it though, I don't think L12C3 should be used as venue > for probability-calculations, but rather a more general way for ACs to > dish out "equity" where it is difficult to achieve by a strict > application of L12C2. I find the probability discussions very enlightening to come up with a better understanding of what equity really means. I don not propose that an AC should try and determine if a certain action has a probability of 57 or 63%, but a difference between 70% and 30% is certainly possible to determine! > An interesting discussion would actually be if > L12C2 and 3 are not in fact in competition, and having C3 one could do > away with C2?? Quite clearly ! If the AC decides that a certain action has 100% certainty, then the L12C3 result that follows will be equal to the L12C2 one. Also, if the AC decides that the probability is 90%, my suggestion is to treat this as a 100% case, and then again the L12C3 result is the same as the L12C2 one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 18:59:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:54 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA04039 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:59:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-110.uunet.be [194.7.13.110]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14625 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:02:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FA332C.AD30DD37@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:39:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809111526.LAA02685@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme > > judiciary ? > > All I can say is that this exposes a vast cultural difference between > most Americans and most people in the rest of the world. Americans are > instinctively distrustful (I am being diplomatic here, believe it or > not.) of unlimited powers in any form. I cannot imagine an American > even asking the above question except for perhaps rhetorical purposes. > When I wrote my sentence, I did think, "oh yes, Americans will be very eager to reply yes to this". I thought about deleting it then, but decided against it. Rather, I'd like you to think it over, forgetting for a while American bias against "unlimited powers". In fact, these powers are not unlimited. L12C2 will result in some score, either 0% or 100% depending on the view of the committee. L12C3 will result in some score in between. I don't call that "unlimited powers". I would urge the ACBL to come up with a more careful wording, perhaps an explanation of the word "vary", with which they can show their trust in AC's, and allow them to do what they think is right ! > I am aware that most non-Americans have a very different view. I > suspect most Americans are not aware of this. > > > A score has to be determined. > > A Committee is set up, presumably of the best people you can find. > > Alas, "best people you can find" may not be very good. There are > plenty of sad examples, even under the present rules. (There are > quite likely more bad examples in North America than in the rest of > the world.) > If the best people you can find are not good enough, then that is a problem. But those same people are quite likely to come up with a bad L12C2 score as well. And then I hear that you need 4 levels of training in order to become ACBL AC member ? I did not follow any AC courses and I was on the WBF AC! Best people you can find ? How about, "being judged by your peers" ? The Americans should be used to that, with juries deciding traffic court cases ? > > If you find it bad, vote against it, but for ACBL to say that it's in > > the rules but we don't want it is simple stupid. > > What do you mean, vote against it? My designated representatives, the > ACBL BoD, *did* vote against it, at least for our zone. What else > would you have any of us do? (I *hope* the American representatives > on the WBFLC tried to have the wording changed, but they would be > in a difficult position if everyone else is happy with the current > text. Allowing zones to opt out seems a reasonable compromise.) > So the ACBL prefers having the Laws differing world-wide rather than taking a stance, voting on it, and accepting the result ? Sorry for calling that stupid, but it is! > I don't think the ACBL would disagree with the concept of giving > weighted scores when a single result seems inequitable. I know I > wouldn't object. But blanket authority for an AC to assign whatever > score it pleases, regardless of the other laws (which is what L12C3 > *says*), is not something that Americans will accept. > That is why I urge you to have the text changed (the Europeans don't like it either) or explained in AC guidelines! > Does this clarify why there is a difference of opinion? It clarifies it, it does not make it right ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 19:00:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:00:16 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04090 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:00:08 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-110.uunet.be [194.7.13.110]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14681 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:02:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FA3831.70BDD6CE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:00:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809112245.SAA03102@cfa183.harvard.edu> <35FABB06.3284@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I would like to see our list get in agreement on the WBF handling of > > > things, then let the Americans ponder over what they shall do in the > > > absense of L12C3. Agreed, list ? > > > > OK with me. > > As I see L12C3 - it's wording is too harsh: absolute power has newer > brought only good results. You would indeed expect a Russian to be on America's side concerning "absolute powers" > Americans are right and several examples from > Lille's appeals proved it once more. Grattan's (and WFBLC's) intentions > were nice but "road to the Hell is paved by nice intentions"... > For my opinion it may be better if L12C3 is interpretated for purpose > correction of L12C2: in cases where (under L12C2) there are several > favourable LAs for NOS and several unfavourable for OS - AC may vary > TD's decision by taking into account these favourable/unfavourable LAs > (I guess that practically there are 2-3 such LA). > Such interpretation will limit AC's power and will not contradict with > L12C2. > Vitold Indeed a more thorough explanation regarding the application of L12C3 is the way forward, not the abolishment of it ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 19:03:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:03:29 +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 TAA04162 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:03:21 +1000 Received: from modem73.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.201] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zI86q-0002Tq-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:06:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:20:36 +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=KOI8-R 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: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 > Date: 13 September 1998 08:58 > > Hi all:) > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > > Marvin L. French writes: > > > > And just now we have received Grattan's message from Minutes: > "The Committee (WBFLC) remarked that the right to redress for a NOS is > not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action > etc." > > Might be, left hand did not know what was right hand doing? Or these > explanations are for us, grey players (TDs) only, for making us calm? > As I understood - AC at the Championship did not execute according with > direct WBFLC's decision. ++++ Decisions made at three WBFLC meetings in Lille were only ratified at the end of the Championships and did not affect the Championships in Lille. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 20:22:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:22:42 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04449 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:22:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-219.uunet.be [194.7.9.219]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23171; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:25:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FB961F.4887EAD4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:53:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Wildavsky , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > >I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, > >1% correction. > > If possible I'd like to keep the L12C3 discussion separate. Playing in the > ACBL I have no experience with L12C3. I was under the impression, though, > that it would be used seldom, and then only to provide equity where the > committee believes L12C2 fails to, or where the committee cannot agree on > how to apply the 12C2 criteria. Since L12C2 can only be used by committees, > not directors, I'd assumed it must be used seldom. Otherwise a pair could > go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more > favorable than the one assigned by the directors. > Precisely the reason why I'd suggest giving L12C3 powers to some senior directors. > If I'm mistaken please let me know. Also, in particular, please let me know > if you think 12C3 figured in any way in the committee decisions in cases 1 > and 26 in Lille, and whether you think it should have. > I don't know about Appeal 1, but in Appeal 26, L12C3 never entered the frame. As I said, only a 1% adjustment would seem equitable to me, and I don't advocate using L12C3 in those instances. > As an aside, I'd feel much better about these writeups if they consistently > mentioned the individual Laws the committee applied in reaching its > decision. Any disagreement? > Of course not, but sometimes the using of Laws is so standard, that it is not interesting to add them. But of course to the lay public, it always is, so yes, they should be added, and if they weren't, mea culpa and apologies. > AW -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 13 20:22:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:22:44 +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 UAA04451 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:22:38 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-219.uunet.be [194.7.9.219]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23176 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FB966C.3B4C3C16@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:54:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809121832.LAA09985@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: > > Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of > the AC he chaired for Case #35. > > No need to show the hand or bidding, it's fairly simple: E/W bid 4 > > (typo for +620) > > For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the > scores of +450 and 50. > > The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 > and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) > = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). I think the decision is obvious, as are the reasons for it, as is the calculation. What's the problem ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 02:14:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:14:37 +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 CAA07806 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:14:31 +1000 Received: from client2511.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.17] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zIEq9-0001LJ-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:17:30 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:16:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddf31$ec549680$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 When I received this posting I thought that maybe something was missing but trusted that it would appear later. I now wonder if it should have been the "fourth extract" from the WBFLC minutes at Lille. I have the first three and the fifth. I am keen to collate them all. Can anyone help me please. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Grattan To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs >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 >To: Grattan Endicott >Subject: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs >Date: 19 August 1998 13:24 > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 02:50:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:31 +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 CAA07849 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:24 +1000 Received: from modem81.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zIFOt-0004c8-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:53:23 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Martin" , Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:49:55 +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 "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 Martin > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: bidding box regulations > Date: 09 September 1998 13:43 > > Steve wrote: > > SNIP David Martin: > > > Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference > > between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought > > and a call that was not "made" in the first place. > > ++==++ This brings me to WBFLC minutes extract number Six. ! " The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman drew attention to the effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the law. " The Committee said in the next section of the minutes:- " It was also decided that should a player's partner call out of turn following the player's bid, cancellation of the out-of-turn call does not reopen the door to a Law 25B purposeful correction; Law 29 now applies. " ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 02:50:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:30 +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 CAA07848 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:22 +1000 Received: from modem81.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zIFOr-0004c8-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:53:22 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 12C3 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:50:55 +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 "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: Adam Wildavsky > To: Herman De Wael > > If possible I'd like to keep the L12C3 discussion separate. Playing in the > ACBL I have no experience with L12C3. I was under the impression, though, > that it would be used seldom, and then only to provide equity where the > committee believes L12C2 fails to, or where the committee cannot agree on > how to apply the 12C2 criteria. Since L12C2 can only be used by committees, > not directors, I'd assumed it must be used seldom. Otherwise a pair could > go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more > favorable than the one assigned by the directors. > ++++ I wanted 12C3 to be added rather to 93B3 but EK had his way. It is simply a tool of the AC. A pair is entitled to appeal an adjustment if they consider it acts unfairly upon them and they are entitled to be aware that the AC has the 12C3 powers. That does not remove the risk that the appeal will be found to lack merit (footnote to Law 92A). 12C3 should be used as often as the AC considers it will allow of nearer equity on the hand than 12C2 does. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 02:50:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:29 +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 CAA07847 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:50:21 +1000 Received: from modem81.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zIFOo-0004c8-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:53:19 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:33:29 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: 13 September 1998 09:01 Grattan Endicott wrote: > Steve Willner writes:: > mlfrench writes: Now, there remains a problem. Neither the French definition nor the restated English definition catches the conventions that name a playable denomination while also saying something specific about one or more other denominations. I don't know how to fit that into the restatement, so I add a sentence: A bid that is not otherwise a convention becomes one if it conveys something specific about a denomination other than the one named. +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say that in my view the English is clear: a call, for example, of 2S that shows Spades and another suit conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named - it is an additional meaning but the law says the meaning shall be confined to willingness to play in the suit named to be non-conventional. The addition makes it conventional and there is no ambiguity. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:03:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:18 +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 DAA07917 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:12 +1000 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.79]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980913170610.FJAQ2535.fep4@ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:10 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:09 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3606fb25.8224446@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, 11 Sep 1998 02:33:02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>1b. Same auction, but 2C=3Dclubs plus a higher-ranking suit. > > Clubs are specified: clubs are not specified by another bid from the >same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a club. The EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen disagrees. It says that the TD "must place it in one of two categories - either: (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit all of which were specified; or (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit." This is the way I rule, and I thought it was also the standard elsewhere. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:03:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:29 +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 DAA07925 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:21 +1000 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.79]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980913170620.FJAV2535.fep4@ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:20 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3604f145.5695970@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, 11 Sep 1998 03:15:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a >weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". There is a lot of sense in that. But it worries me that this argument, in principle, is just as valid when there is no psyche: an infraction that silences partner when you have a weak hand could in itself lead to a L72B1 ruling. And that would IMO be going too far. It also worries me that we have no definition of what a "psyche" actually is in the context of a silenced partner - the law book definition is meaningless in that context. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:03:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:42 +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 DAA07942 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:03:31 +1000 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.79]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980913170629.FJAX2535.fep4@ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:29 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3605f304.6143163@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809111916.MAA28682@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <35FA3554.6F2C97E4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35FA3554.6F2C97E4@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 Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:48:20 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >But again, what is so terribly wrong with giving the AC the power to >gicvce this kind of ruling ? There is something very wrong with having different rules for TDs and ACs. It is inconsistent to have laws that make it illegal for a TD to give the ruling that would be correct for an AC. So L12C3 should either be=20 (a) removed completely, or (b) extended to be usable by TDs. I personally prefer (a) because I generally prefer simple laws that can be interpreted almost equally by many people. But (b) would also be an improvement on the current laws. L12C3 in itself is strange: it basically says "ignore L12C2 whenever you feel like doing so". Guidance on how to recognize situations where L12C3 is to be used is necessary for this to make sense at all. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:06:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:06:19 +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 DAA07982 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:06:11 +1000 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.79]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980913170909.FJEC2535.fep4@ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:09:09 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:09:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360afba6.8352750@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bddf31$ec549680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bddf31$ec549680$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 Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:16:54 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >When I received this posting I thought that maybe something was missing >but trusted that it would appear later. >I now wonder if it should have been the "fourth extract" from the WBFLC >minutes at Lille. It should. Somehow the copy directly to me was ok, but the one going via Australia was not. Here is Grattan's message - I hope it gets through this time: 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) =20 ---------- =46rom: Jesper Dybdal To: Grattan Endicott Subject: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: 19 August 1998 13:24 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:14:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:14:44 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08008 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:14:38 +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 KAA16048 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809131717.KAA16048@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:13:48 -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 Endicott wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > Neither the French definition nor the [(i.e., my)] > restated English definition catches the conventions that name a > playable denomination while also saying something specific about > one or more other denominations. I don't know how to fit that into > the restatement, so I add a sentence: > > A bid that is not otherwise a convention becomes one if it conveys > something specific about a denomination other than the one named. > > +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say that > in my view the English is clear: a call, for example, of 2S that > shows Spades and another suit conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named - it is an > additional meaning but the law says the meaning shall be confined > to willingness to play in the suit named to be non-conventional. > The addition makes it conventional and there is no ambiguity. > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ Hey, I accept your definition and your interpretation of it, and I'm not suggesting that it be changed. My "restatements" aren't changing anything, they are only aimed at making the definition's intent clear to those of us (including myself) who find it not so clear. You "don't want to go through this again," but people like the highly intelligent Steve Willner are still saying the definition says something other than what you (and I) believe it says. I thought my "restatements" might help. As I understand it, a "restatement" must not change the intent of what is being restated. Evidently I have succeeded in that goal. If not, someone please let me know. It is unfortunate that the French version does not entirely conform to the English version. It could have done, with a literal translation, but the clearer (IMO) translation has left a gap in the intended meaning. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 03:58:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:58:47 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08163 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:58:39 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA23580 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:01:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 13 Sep 98 19:00 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 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: <199809122239.SAA17171@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> David Grabiner wrote: > > > Well, we better show the deal after all: > > > Vulnerability: E-W > > Dealer: South > > > S- K5 > > H- AQJ72 > > D- 6 > > C- KJT85 > > > S- A98432 S- T76 > > H- K9 H- 6 > > D- Q754 D- AK1098 > > C- 7 C- Q432 > > > S- QJ > > H- T8543 > > D- J32 > > C- A96 > > > West North East South (usual directions) > > Pass > > 2S 3H 4S Pass (1) > > Pass 5C Pass 5H > > All pass > > > (1) Disputed hesitation > > > The TD assigned a score of 4S making ten tricks, both sides. > > > So what was the "questionable defense"? I wish the writeup had > > detailed it, as it is hard to see how E/W could misdefend hurtfully > > after the stated ace of diamonds, spade to the ace, unblock by > > North. North surely would play East for the queen of clubs. > > My guess is that the spade at trick two is itself the questionable > defense. If East continues diamonds, declarer cannot both finesse East > for the CQ and take the heart finesse. Um.. ruff D, Club to C9, H finesse, HA , CJ etc making 6! Are we sure about the hand record - 5H looks unbeatable (by the defence, obviously declarer could go wrong). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 05:13:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 05:13:23 +1000 Received: from icarus.dur.ac.uk (icarus.dur.ac.uk [129.234.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08425 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 05:13:16 +1000 Received: from mercury (mercury.dur.ac.uk [129.234.4.40]) by icarus.dur.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA10046 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:16:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:16:14 +0100 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:16:13 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: robin.michaels@vega.dur.ac.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3604f145.5695970@post12.tele.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It has just occured to me that the problem is deeper than what has been mentioned so far. Once we have accepted that if one bids out of turn, and then psyches, this can be used as evidence that one 'could have known' it would disadvantage NO, then surely the same BooT should be penalised whether or not it was followed by a psyche: For example. Suppose i) I open 2D (multi) out of turn on the hand Richard held, and then, after it is cancelled, psyche a 1H call (on a singleton H). This is penalised under the 'could have known' rules, as described above. ii) I open 2D(multi) out of turn, under the same circumstances, and then, after it is cancelled, I pass. _AT_THE_TIME_ I bid 2D out of turn, to silence partner, I could have known it would provide the option of psyching a 1H call. So I didn't do it. But the penalties should apply to the action _independent_ of future intention. So I should be equally penalised in this scenario. iii) Same again, but this time, after my call is cancelled, RHO opens 2N(strong) in front of me. Again, I pass. Again, I could have known that _had_ RHO passed, I'd have had the opportunity to make a risk free psyche of 1H. So again, I should be penalised for this. These conclusions worry me a bit. I'm sure it is not the intention to let these adjustments in by the back door, but if you don't you are saying, in effect, that once you make a bid out of turn, you may not use misleading calls to confuse oppo, because that could be taken as evidence that you could have known silencing partner would work to your advantage. I find this a ridiculous position- having made a BooT, you should be free to take any action, given you have already paid a heavy price. Perhaps in especially blatant, or egregious cases- the old insufficient bid coup, used after you have made some light-weight action, to prevent partner making an erroneous further bid or double, for example- this approach should be applied, but I find it hard to justify the wider application of this- it seems to me to be too far reaching. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 06:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:15:34 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA08592 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:15:27 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:18:25 -0700 Message-ID: <35FC2922.B7141AD5@home.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:20:50 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan , blml Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan I know you don't want to revisit this, but pls give me one shot at asking for clarification, since I have kept quiet so far :-) Grattan wrote: > +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say that > in my view the English is clear: a call, for example, of 2S that > shows Spades and another suit conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named - it is an > additional meaning but the law says the meaning shall be confined > to willingness to play in the suit named to be non-conventional. > The addition makes it conventional and there is no ambiguity. I agree this is a sensible/logical interpretation. In long discussions on R.G.B. though many contributors, including knowledegable ones such as David des Jardins, claim it is obvious to interpret "meaning other than" to include also "residual" meanings. In your 2S example, they consider it a "convention" even if it shows *only* S, arguing along the lines that it then *also* has the meaning of lacking another long suit! They also argue that a normal, non-canape, 1H opening is a convention since it has the *additional* meaning that you have no longer suit than H! Finally, some consider the sentence about "a bid that shows a certain hcp-count is not a convention..." to mean that unlimited bids *are* conventions. I always thought, and find it logical, that the intent of this addition was a clarification of the preceeding part, to avoid that a natural, NF, 1NT response to 1X becomes a convention just because, in addition to willingness to play in NT, it also shows a certain hcp-count. Although it would make the connection clearer if the wording included something like: "...showing a certain hcp-count does not **in and of itself** make a call a convention..." would appreciate your confirmation of the above so we can finally put this issue at rest one way or the other. Tks a lot PS: Of course the interpretation subscribed to by those contributors (mainly acbl'ers) makes 99% of all natural calls into "conventions" (that can be regulated by the SO), which I've assumed was not the intent of the law-makers. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 06:29:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:29:07 +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 GAA08677 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:29:01 +1000 Received: from client271a.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.27.26] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zIIoB-0001mA-00; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:31:44 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:28:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddf55$20951fa0$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 Thank you for trying.. but unfortunately unsuccesfully. Grattan must have discovered the killfile that David has been trying to get! Perhaps Grattan would be kind enough to try again? Anne -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: BLML Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:16:54 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >When I received this posting I thought that maybe something was missing >but trusted that it would appear later. >I now wonder if it should have been the "fourth extract" from the WBFLC >minutes at Lille. It should. Somehow the copy directly to me was ok, but the one going via Australia was not. Here is Grattan's message - I hope it gets through this time: 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 To: Grattan Endicott Subject: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: 19 August 1998 13:24 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 07:58:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:58:11 +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 HAA08909; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:58:05 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980913220104.FVMR2535.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk>; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:01:04 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Cc: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:01:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35fe3fff.447783@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bddf31$ec549680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bddf31$ec549680$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 I wrote: >Here is Grattan's message - I hope it gets through this time: I've realized what (probably) was the problem: a line containing just a period (which marks the end of a message in the sendmail program unless it is given a "-oi" option). Markus may want to look into that, but meanwhile here is a copy of Grattan's message without that line: 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) =20 ---------- =46rom: Jesper Dybdal To: Grattan Endicott Subject: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: 19 August 1998 13:24 Jesper wrote: >It thus seems that it disappears somewhere in the WBF or EBL - or >is being sent to some address other than the DBF secretariat. ++ I have used the NBO snail-mail addresses in Anna Gudge's website to send the Lille minutes to NBOs. Some will have arrived,=20 some are still on the way. The minutes are a private communication to NBOs. For BLML I am extracting key items, as you will have seen. Number 4 is attached hereto. ~ Grattan ~ ++=20 ++=3D=3D++ Fourth extract from WBFLC Lille minutes :- " The Term 'Average Minus' Having debated the options, the Committee held=20 that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. " --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 10:14:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:14:27 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09162 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:14:21 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIMKV-0000FP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:17:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:15:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>> If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows >>>that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing >>>partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the >>>*same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. > >>I am not entirely convinced by these arguments. The problem arises that >>whenever you have taken a course of action which silences partner then >>the proposal is that you cannot psyche because you could have known it >>might be to your advantage to have silenced partner. >> >>However, the law explicitly caters for the infraction (whatever it is) >>that silences partner. Fine. Penalty paid. And the law says that you >>may psyche. So you do. But I've never seen an adjustment where someone, >>say, undercalls and then bashes 3NT (which happens to make) ... and I >>don't see the difference. We are not being asked to make a bridge >>judgement here about whether the hand is weak or strong, we're just >>applying the laws as they are writ. >> >>Am I missing a fundamental point? > > Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the >time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the >time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could >gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a >weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". > I can see the point of this argument but in the case in point the player concerned inadvertently committed the infraction and then followed L72A5. On what possible basis can we over-rule this? He only could have known if he HAD known his opponent would open 1D to allow him to set it up. So IMO he could *never* have *known* - but he might have been able to guess there was a possibility (but that is not the same as could have known) When I hesitate for example I'm immediately in the position of *could have known*. When I open out of turn I am never there. -- 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 Sep 14 10:23:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:23:51 +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 ESMTP id KAA09194 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:23:46 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIMTd-0001ob-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:25:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809121910.FAA00246@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809121910.FAA00246@octavia.anu.edu.au>, af06@rz.uni- karlsruhe.de writes >According to Jan Kamras: >> >> Sshhhhhhh.....guys, (whispering now) we are not supposed to mention his >> name in a bad light anymore....ssshhhhhhhhhh. Maybe we use a secret > > >I suggest the Nickname 'the BOB' (not to be confused with >Bobby). The BOB is already known as an evil entity which >wants to destroy the fun parts of our live, see >rec.games.comics.marvel.universe. > > >Thomas >> > 666 ? 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 Mon Sep 14 11:45:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09362 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkn-0004E7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:05:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 6:36 AM -0400 9/9/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >>My reasoning is this : given the misinformation, a player has chosen >>action A. Without the misinformation, the player is slightly more >>likely to choose B, which is more successfull. >> >>If the "slightly" is set at 1%, as it may be in this extreme case, then >>this translates to, without the information, the player will still >>choose action A in 99% of the cases, and action B in 1%. >>I could therefor go along with a L12C3 correction to 99% no correction, >>1% correction. > >If possible I'd like to keep the L12C3 discussion separate. Playing in the >ACBL I have no experience with L12C3. I was under the impression, though, >that it would be used seldom, and then only to provide equity where the >committee believes L12C2 fails to, or where the committee cannot agree on >how to apply the 12C2 criteria. Since L12C2 can only be used by committees, >not directors, I'd assumed it must be used seldom. Otherwise a pair could >go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more >favorable than the one assigned by the directors. That is considered a normal reason to appeal in the EBU. >As an aside, I'd feel much better about these writeups if they consistently >mentioned the individual Laws the committee applied in reaching its >decision. Any disagreement? When I was writing them up I included any Law numbers that the AC and/or TD quoted. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 11:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:51 +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 ESMTP id LAA09363 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkn-0004E9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:10:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lillie Appeal 33 In-Reply-To: <35FB7DD6.97FDAB8@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Frankly though, I'd live with any combination of EW -380 and NS -110. It >seems totally clear that NS +130 is the only result NOT possible. I appear to have made a mistake if this is what you think the write-up means. NS +130 was for 4D making or 3D+1 not for 2D+2. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 11:45:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:49 +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 ESMTP id LAA09361 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkj-0004E8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:56:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Martin: >> >> > Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference >> > between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought >> > and a call that was not "made" in the first place. Unless the call is an infraction, of course. I have just had a jolly weekend acting as a gopher for mamos in an international trial. 14 tables, barometer scoring, software. mamos spent the first 13 hours struggling with the software, while I stripped boards. What is "stripping boards", do I hear you ask? Well you might! We have a little habit in England [used to be in Wales also, but they have gone sensible recently] of providing a written copy of the hand on a thing called a curtain card, which goes in with the 13 cards into the pocket of the board. They need to be removed at the end of play, and it takes longer than you would think when you have a lot of boards! Anyway, after that came the night. mamos used this time to put in all the adjustments the software had not allowed him earlier - apparently he does not need sleep. He did snarl a bit on the next day. All's well that ends well - he brought his charming girlfriend along to help next day. "Are you any good at stripping" I asked tactfully - and she was! The point of all this is that several things appeared that seemed suitable for BLML. The simplest one is to just see whether we are agreed on this bidding box business. Someone took a bid part-way out of the box but it was not his turn to bid. We changed our regulations in line with elsewhere on 1st Sep so the bid is made when it is removed from the box apparently intentionally. The bottom of the bidding card was higher than the top of the box but it was not higher than the bidding cards that were left in the box - they still overlapped it. Was the bid made, thus making it a bid out of rotation? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 11:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:51 +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 ESMTP id LAA09359 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:34 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkj-0004E9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:03:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980912115650.007bcb00@cshore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Segraves wrote: >I still don't like the conclusion, and I suspect that it was discomfort >with this conclusion that led to the creation of "26C". Imo, Law 26, as >written, is clearly insuffficient to deal with the ramifications of the >problem resulting in 2b. However, there is no particular reason why the >answer to the *question* - what is the specified lead penalty - has to be >the same as the answer to the *problem*. Fortunately, there are other laws >that may come to the rescue. > >After east has gotten in the information that he holds a minor for "free", >west finds a somewhat unusual, killing, minor suit lead - how do you rule? On a different thread, Grattan wrote: ++++ I have not been following this thread. Is Law 16C2 involved ? ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ This is the L16C2 thread, Grattan! The answer to Bill is that the information was UI, and L16C2 refers, so I adjust. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 11:45:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:49 +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 ESMTP id LAA09360 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkj-0004EA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:03:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the >> time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the >> time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could >> gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a >> weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". >++++ I have not been following this thread. Is Law 16C2 >involved ? ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ No. :))) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 11:45:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:50 +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 ESMTP id LAA09358 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:45:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zINkj-0004E7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: <9w4iLIAuVG$1EwR5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:38:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <35FA3568.D6294666@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> From: Herman De Wael >> >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme >> >> judiciary ? >> Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. >Which has nothing to do with L12C3. >The AC decided there was an infraction. >The AC, or its chairman, may have got that wrong. >But there is no problem here with too much power to the AC! There seems to be a lot of fear in this list [and perhaps in bridge in general] that people in power will act in the wrong fashion, and perhaps in a power-mad fashion. We have seen criticism here [and more frequently in RGB] of the ACBL for its approach to limiting what may be played. We are now seeing worries expressed over Appeals Committees. It is certainly a modern idea that authority is not trusted. Perhaps it is the effect of the media, or changing times, or something else. What seems to have been missed is that it is often unhelpful. It may be fun to try and chase Clinton from office for the sort of sexual lying that three-quarters of his critics have indulged in at some time, but it is not good for the USA. However, people will do it. Now, on this list there seems to be a feeling that the WBFLC should control these people in power through the Laws. Why? Why can we not assume that the ACBL is doing its best for its members? Surely, people that want to play the Phadifklack Diamond Relay are always going to blame the ACBL for not allowing it which obviously is because of a personal vendetta aimed just at them [as editor of the EBU's Orange book I can assure you I understand that]. But that does not mean that they are right. I find this continuous business as to what constitutes a convention so that we can see what can be regulated very sad. Who cares? Why? Why not let the ACBL do their best over regulation? OK, try peer pressure or letters to the Bulletins or whatever to change particular points but trying to control their regulating permitted agreements through the stranger bits of the Definition of Convention is very sad. Where is all this leading, do I hear you ask [well, apart from those who have deleted this article and gone on to the next one!]? It is this business of L12C3. I am amazed at the arguments against this Law from t'other side of the pond. It sounds as though you would expect an AC, given powers under L12C3, to go immediately mad. Do you think there is no control and they do what they like? In the EBU any appeal that is heard is recorded on an Appeal Form. These are collected and scrutinised by the Laws & Ethics Committee [via a couple of screeners]. If an Appeals Committee does something outlandish then they will be asked to explain, and it may be commented on in print. If it is felt that Appeal members are not doing a reasonable job they are unlikely to be used again. In fact, this is incredibly rare: we find a very high standard of effort from our Appeals Committees, and they only tend to go very wrong when there are no experienced members in the more local events. As far as L12C3 is concerned the L&EC has controlled its use through advice, through an Appeals newsletter and through giving opinions in other ways. In effect they use it sensibly as an extension to L12C2, with the proviso that you may not use as part of your assessment for the OS any result obtained through a disallowed call or play. [This special position is known as the Reveley position, after a personal friend of Grattan's and mine, who claims it is all lies and was never anything to do with him - ho ho!]. In other jurisdictions the Reveley position is permitted. The point is that the apparent vagueness of the wording does not mean that ACs just go mad. If the ACBL were to enable it I would expect them to do so within a framework of advice, interpretation and/or regulation. I do not envisage [as some on the list appear to assume I do] the ACBL just saying "OK, here's L12C3: do what you like and blame L12C3!" This leaves the question of Appeal 23 in Lille. The WBF is in a strange anomalous position of finding it very difficult to control its TDs and ACs and other tournament staff very well in its own competitions. It is easy to criticise them but have you considered *how* to control them? If you think that Appeal 23 shows how you can misuse the Law then that is your opinion: but it is nothing to do with L12C3. It is just that you have an Appeal where the application of Law was not done in a way that popular opinion deems to be right. However, that should not affect opinions of what can be done by a National organisation which should be able to apply a sensible level of control. I believe that the ACBL would benefit from enabling L12C3. I do not think that they need to re-write the Law before it is usable but I do believe that guidelines in its use, or even more strongly, regulations covering its use, would be required for them to enable without fear of its misuse. I recommend it to members of the ACBL Laws Commission who read this list. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 12:30:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:30:05 +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 MAA09578 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:29:58 +1000 Received: from lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13743 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 22:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 22:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809140232.WAA20012@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:56:21 +0100) Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > The point of all this is that several things appeared that seemed > suitable for BLML. The simplest one is to just see whether we are > agreed on this bidding box business. Someone took a bid part-way out of > the box but it was not his turn to bid. We changed our regulations in > line with elsewhere on 1st Sep so the bid is made when it is removed > from the box apparently intentionally. The bottom of the bidding card > was higher than the top of the box but it was not higher than the > bidding cards that were left in the box - they still overlapped it. Was > the bid made, thus making it a bid out of rotation? I don't think a bid out of rotation is subject to penalty until it could be seen by partner. I am trying to follow the spirit of the rules here. For purposes of change of call, it is necessary to determine when the player *intended* to make the original call. For purposes of calls out of rotation, it is only necessary to determine when the player *actually* made the call, because until that has happened, no damage is possible, except the potential UI that partner had some kind of call available. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 13:13:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:13:56 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09661 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:13:49 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lc4co.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.152]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30444 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980913231512.007195c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:15:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 In-Reply-To: <35FB966C.3B4C3C16@village.uunet.be> References: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 AM 9/13/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> Maybe Herman De Wael will be so kind as to explain the decision of >> the AC he chaired for Case #35. >> >> No need to show the hand or bidding, it's fairly simple: E/W bid 4 >> >> (typo for +620) >> >> For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the >> scores of +450 and 50. >> >> The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 >> and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) >> = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). > >I think the decision is obvious, as are the reasons for it, as is the >calculation. >What's the problem ? > The problem, Herman, is the vague and (so far as has been explained) unsupported contention that EW were in any respect delinquent in their defensive effort. As has been pointed out by others, NS could easily make 5H without a defensive miscue, simply by taking the correct view in the round suits, which is in fact quite a reasonable line given the bidding. Obviously 5H is not cold, but good/bad defense seems fairly irrelevant. If this is the case, then it seems like EW are entitled to full redress per L12C2, i.e., plus 620. Actually this is only part of the problem: the bigger issue is whether this case shows exactly why L12C3 is a bad idea. To me, it seems like it does. Even if EW were guilty of less than perfect defense, they are only put in this position because of the illegal 5H call. Why is it "inequitable" to restore them to the status quo ante? I have in the past asserted my belief in the "Kaplan doctrine" that the causal link between damage and an irregularity can be severed by an egregious error, but if that were the case in this example, then the equitable (and correct) adjustment would be -450 for EW and -620 for NS. That would be equitable, for example, if the 5H contract is unmakeable save for a revoke by EW (although others have contested the characterization of such as an egregious error). I'm afraid that when AC's undertake to "do equity" per L12C3, the resulting score adjustments will tend to be largely random, as in the present case, and I fail to see how that will increase confidence in the fairness of the procedings, which I understood to be the nominal purpose of this addition. BTW, my thanks to you and David and others for being willing to discuss cases in which you were involved. It can't be easy to have others dissecting and criticizing your decisions, and if my comments or others' seem harsh, I hope they are tempered by the knowledge that we all appreciate your efforts and respect your expertise, even when we disagree. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 14:34:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:34:29 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA09795 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:34:23 +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 VAA05886; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809140436.VAA05886@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:34:15 -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 Michael Dennis wrote: > I have in the past asserted my belief in the "Kaplan doctrine" that the > causal link between damage and an irregularity can be severed by an > egregious error, but if that were the case in this example, then the > equitable (and correct) adjustment would be -450 for EW and -620 for NS. > That would be equitable, for example, if the 5H contract is unmakeable save > for a revoke by EW (although others have contested the characterization of > such as an egregious error). > I have been under the impression that if the NOS could not obtain a better score by "playing bridge" (or whatever phrase you want to use for not doing something really stupid for their level of ability), then they get full redress (most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction) no matter what they do. For instance, if a cold slam is bid by misuse of UI and the NOS revokes to permit an overtrick, they had no easy path to a better score than an opposing game contract. Despite the revoke, the damage (cold slam bid) was a consequence of the infraction. Restore that damage (game bid, not slam), but not the subsequent damage (the revoke stays). If the slam would certainly have gone down without the revoke, no redress. The NOS keep their result, the score is adjusted for the OS only. Therefore, if EW had revoked (surely an egregious act, BTW) to let 5H make in Case #35 (e.g., after declarer lays down the ace of hearts), they still get their +620 score for 4S because there was no easy way for them to score more than that after the infraction. Opinions please. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 16:50:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:50:45 +1000 Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA09949 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:50:41 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn11p35.ozemail.com.au [203.108.79.227]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA12543 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:53:37 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:53:37 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809140653.QAA12543@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote after much snipped > Someone took a bid part-way out of >the box but it was not his turn to bid. We changed our regulations in >line with elsewhere on 1st Sep so the bid is made when it is removed >from the box apparently intentionally. The bottom of the bidding card >was higher than the top of the box but it was not higher than the >bidding cards that were left in the box - they still overlapped it. Was >the bid made, thus making it a bid out of rotation? > I made a similar bid the other day. I opened 1NT, partner bid 2C (Stayman), and I had the 2D card out (not quite out of the box, but separated from the other cards) when I saw that RHO had now bid 2S. I called the TD who thought that since partner had not seen my bid, I could change to anything without penalty. I thought this was clearly wrong, and moreover was very confused as to what I should do. We eventually ended up in the wrong contract as usual. Tony >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Sep 14 17:46:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:17 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA10177 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:08 +1000 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zITNj-0005Qh-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:49:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:26:16 +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: Jan Kamras > To: Grattan ; blml > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 13 September 1998 21:20 > > Grattan > > I know you don't want to revisit this, > > Grattan wrote: > > > +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say that > > in my view the English is clear: > > I agree this is a sensible/logical interpretation. >. In your 2S example, they consider > it a "convention" even if it shows *only* S, arguing along the lines > that it then *also* has the meaning of lacking another long suit! > They also argue that a normal, non-canape, 1H opening is a convention > since it has the *additional* meaning that you have no longer suit than > H! ++==++ This particular point is the one on which the WBFLC pronounced in Lille. I have circulated the decision as my fifth extract on BLML ++==++ > > Finally, some consider the sentence about "a bid that shows a certain > hcp-count is not a convention..." to mean that unlimited bids *are* > conventions. ++==++ I have missed seeing any such suggestion so I did not include it in my papers for Lille. So the Committee has not looked at it this time.However, they were a little impatient even with what I took to them, apparently not believing anybody could be serious about it. And I would bank on it they would be even more dismissive of this one; there is a danger internet debate will be disregarded if it spends its time chasing butterflies. To answer your question, WBFLC has never considered the point and this is surely because it has not thought it worth the time that might be spent on it. Let me use this message to quote the following: Seventh Extract from Minutes of WBFLC in Lille " Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. " ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 17:46:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:19 +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 RAA10178 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:10 +1000 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zITNl-0005Qh-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:49:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Repeat of Fourth Extract Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:29:09 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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) ++==++ I understand this may have gone astray ? WBFLC: Fourth Extract from the Minutes of Lille meetings. "Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law 12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower." ++==++ [ Let me say again that full copies of the minutes, not for publication, have been forwarded to NBOs at the addresses shown on Anna Gudge's website.] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 17:46:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:20 +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 RAA10183 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:11 +1000 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zITNm-0005Qh-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:49:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:37:32 +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 "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: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Material from the WBFLC to the NBOs > Date: 13 September 1998 17:16 > > When I received this posting I thought that maybe something was missing > but trusted that it would appear later. > I now wonder if it should have been the "fourth extract" from the WBFLC > minutes at Lille. I have the first three and the fifth. I am keen to > collate them all. Can anyone help me please. > Anne ++++ My computer may be a cat with a mind of its own. I reached seven this morning. G. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 17:46:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:17 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA10176 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:07 +1000 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zITNh-0005Qh-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:49:06 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Robin Michaels" , Cc: Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:21:49 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk +Grattan "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: Robin Michaels > To: robin.michaels@vega.dur.ac.uk > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced > Date: 13 September 1998 20:16 > > It has just occured to me that the problem is deeper > ++++ Steady! In order to adjust the offender's score under Law 72B1 the following conditions must apply: 1. There must be an infraction. 2. The offending side must be deemed to have obtained an advantage in the table score following the infraction in a manner that is in some way linked to the infraction. 3. The Director must decide that the offender could have known at the time of the infraction that it would be *likely* to damage the non-offending side. Otherwise we are talking about damage to the non-offenders (Law 12) which is a *consequence* of the infraction; this applies to all adjustments of NO's scores and also to adjustments of OS's scores where 72B1 is not applicable. See my Third Extract from Lille. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 20:37:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:37:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10501 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:37:03 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIW39-0002wQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:40:03 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:18:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: bidding box regulations Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:18:55 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >David Martin: > >> > >> > Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical > difference > >> > between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for > thought > >> > and a call that was not "made" in the first place. > > ######### Just a quick note to clarify that that the above quote is > not mine but comes from one of my replies in which I pointed out that > certain rights are lost when a player calls on the next board. > ############ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 20:37:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:37:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10495 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:36:58 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIW33-0002wS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:39:58 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:35:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:35:19 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: SNIP > I can see the point of this argument but in the case in point the > player > concerned inadvertently committed the infraction and then followed > L72A5. On what possible basis can we over-rule this? > > ########## Two points. First, Law72A5 applies to subsequent actions > after *inadvertant* infractions. Second point, the psyche is part of > the infraction and not subsequent to it. ########### > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 22:01:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:01:09 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10764 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:01:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-200.uunet.be [194.7.13.200]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17349 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:16:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FCF4BD.D8949256@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:49:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980913231512.007195c0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > > >I think the decision is obvious, as are the reasons for it, as is the > >calculation. > >What's the problem ? > > > The problem, Herman, is the vague and (so far as has been explained) > unsupported contention that EW were in any respect delinquent in their > defensive effort. OK, so the decision is understood, but not it's reasons ? In that case, I will now stop commenting on this case. > As has been pointed out by others, NS could easily make > 5H without a defensive miscue, simply by taking the correct view in the > round suits, which is in fact quite a reasonable line given the bidding. > Obviously 5H is not cold, but good/bad defense seems fairly irrelevant. If > this is the case, then it seems like EW are entitled to full redress per > L12C2, i.e., plus 620. > No comment. > Actually this is only part of the problem: the bigger issue is whether this > case shows exactly why L12C3 is a bad idea. To me, it seems like it does. > Even if EW were guilty of less than perfect defense, they are only put in > this position because of the illegal 5H call. Why is it "inequitable" to > restore them to the status quo ante? > Because the committee felt this was equity. > I have in the past asserted my belief in the "Kaplan doctrine" that the > causal link between damage and an irregularity can be severed by an > egregious error, but if that were the case in this example, then the > equitable (and correct) adjustment would be -450 for EW and -620 for NS. > That would be equitable, for example, if the 5H contract is unmakeable save > for a revoke by EW (although others have contested the characterization of > such as an egregious error). > I agree that "normal" play, even if less succesful, should not let the adjustment disappear. Obviously the Committee felt this was not "normal" play. > I'm afraid that when AC's undertake to "do equity" per L12C3, the resulting > score adjustments will tend to be largely random, as in the present case, > and I fail to see how that will increase confidence in the fairness of the > procedings, which I understood to be the nominal purpose of this addition. > Without the use of L12C3, this committee might well have witheld any score adjustment to the defense. It is not L12C3 that is under scrutiny here, but your perception that the Committee made a wrong decision on deciding misdefense. > BTW, my thanks to you and David and others for being willing to discuss > cases in which you were involved. It can't be easy to have others > dissecting and criticizing your decisions, and if my comments or others' > seem harsh, I hope they are tempered by the knowledge that we all > appreciate your efforts and respect your expertise, even when we disagree. > We want to clarify things, not defend our decisions. I think I have done so in this post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 22:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:15:09 +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 WAA10829 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:15:03 +1000 Received: from client091a.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.9.26] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zIXZh-00076G-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:17:46 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:18:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddfd9$ba9b9e60$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 wrote: >>1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. > ++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both 'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 22:34:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:34:14 +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 WAA10923 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:34:08 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA20878 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:36:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Two questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have two unrelated Laws questions. 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether to double us or bid his slam. 2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the OBOOT is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO show? That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled to the information that he has clubs? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 22:45:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:45:58 +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 WAA10971 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:45:52 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22257 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914084800.007ebb10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:48:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <9w4iLIAuVG$1EwR5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <35FA3568.D6294666@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:38 AM 9/14/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Tim Goodwin wrote: > >>> >> From: Herman De Wael >>> >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme >>> >> judiciary ? > >>> Bobby Wolff, Appeal 23. > >>Which has nothing to do with L12C3. > There seems to be a lot of fear in this list [and perhaps in bridge in >general] that people in power will act in the wrong fashion, and perhaps >in a power-mad fashion. My comment about Appeal 23 had nothing to do with L12C3 but rather Herman's "supreme judiciary." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bobby Wolff based his decision in Appeal 23 on the principles of Active Ethics rather than on the Laws. My opinion is that Appeals Committees should not have such powers; their purpose should be to enforce the Laws, not to apply someone's idea of ethics. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:08:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:08:28 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11046 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:08:21 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08340 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914091220.006fe3a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:12:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <35FA332C.AD30DD37@village.uunet.be> References: <199809111526.LAA02685@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM 9/12/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >I would urge the ACBL to come up with a more careful wording, perhaps an >explanation of the word "vary", with which they can show their trust in >AC's, and allow them to do what they think is right ! The thing is, the overwhelming majority of ACBL members, due to a history of unfortunate experiences, lack any trust in their AC's; they can't "show" it because they ain't got it. For the ACBL to give more power or more leeway to its ACs would be wildly unpopular. The ACBL's ill-fated "Classic Bridge" was an attempt to make organized bridge more attractive to the ACBL rank and file. One of its much-ballyhooed features was that ACs were done away with entirely! Lately, the ACBL, under the leadership of Rich Colker, has been responding to their members' concerns by creating a flurry of guidelines for ACs. These are carefully designed to place additional constraints on ACs, circumscribing and reducing their scope for exercising their individual judgments. In that atmosphere, anything along the lines of activating L12C3 would be seen as a step away from where the ACBL is trying to go. Whether the ACBL's new AC guidelines are sensible or not is fodder for another thread. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:09:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:09:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11063 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:09:39 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIYQp-0004ex-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:12:39 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:47:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Two questions Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:47:35 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > I have two unrelated Laws questions. > > 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the > auction? > This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide > whether > to double us or bid his slam. > > ######### IMO no. (See footnote to Law 40). ########### > > > 2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the > OBOOT > is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO > show? > That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled > to the > information that he has clubs? > > ######### IMO no. See Law 16C2. ############## From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:09:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:09:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11062 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:09:38 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIYQo-0004ex-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:12:38 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:44:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:44:55 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > ----and 'specified suits' > > > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:33:02 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > >>1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. > > > ++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be > read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both > 'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. > This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified > with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) > laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > > > ######## I would be grateful if DWS could comment on this as I > believe that the current EBU position (ie. as taught on the last > Christmas panal course) does not accord with Grattan's statement. > ######## From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:24:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:24:10 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11123 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:24:02 +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 JAA09087 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914092802.006fc830@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:28:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199809130804.BAA12804@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:01 AM 9/13/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Now, there remains a problem. Neither the French definition nor the >restated English definition catches the conventions that name a >playable denomination while also saying something specific about >one or more other denominations. I don't know how to fit that into >the restatement, so I add a sentence: > >A bid that is not otherwise a convention becomes one if it conveys >something specific about a denomination other than the one named. > >No doubt that could be improved ("something specific"?), but you >get the idea. It seems to me that it was wording along these lines ("convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named") that gave people the opportunity to subvert the obvious intention of the laws regarding conventions, and, I would assume, led to the rewriting of the definition in the first place. What's needed is wording that clearly contradicts those who would argue that a normal 1S opening bid carries the specific message that opener does not have 7+ hearts, diamonds or clubs, and is therefore a convention (a rather extreme example, but subtler ones abound). 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 Sep 14 23:24:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:24:50 +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 XAA11141 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:24:43 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lc42q.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.90]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28687 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914092611.0071c3d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:26:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 In-Reply-To: <35FCF4BD.D8949256@village.uunet.be> References: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980913231512.007195c0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> Actually this is only part of the problem: the bigger issue is whether this >> case shows exactly why L12C3 is a bad idea. To me, it seems like it does. >> Even if EW were guilty of less than perfect defense, they are only put in >> this position because of the illegal 5H call. Why is it "inequitable" to >> restore them to the status quo ante? >> > >Because the committee felt this was equity. > Precisely the problem. L12C3 invites AC's to assign scores based on their "feelings" about what is equitable, without constraint by any legal standard or even any hard facts. If AC members feel some vague antipathy for one side or the other, or have been cowed by the impressive credentials of some world-class appellant, then they can couch their muddled decision in touchy-feely language about their feelings for equity. Exactly how will this departure from objective standards increase respect for the just application of the Laws? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:43:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:43:52 +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 XAA11232 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:43:43 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA17771 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:46:07 +0200 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:46:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Tim Goodwin Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? > This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether > to double us or bid his slam. This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during auction or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. 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 Mon Sep 14 23:44:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:44:46 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11246 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:44:39 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA09971 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914094840.0070328c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:48:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: References: <7vZ35BAg6F+1EwJk@probst.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:15 AM 9/11/98 +0100, David wrote: > Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the >time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the >time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could >gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a >weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". If I bash 3NT opposite a barred partner, I am hoping that he will have a hand on which 3NT is a possible make. If he does, I will have gained a huge advantage by not having a normal auction to 3NT, leaving my opponents to lead and defend blindly. Indeed, isn't that exactly what I'm hoping for when I bash 3NT? Obviously, I "could have known" when I silenced my partner that this scenario "would be likely" to occur. Any time I take an action that might gain, I "could have known" that it might gain. If we read L72B1 too stringently, it would imply an obligation on the offender's part to take only what he knows to be a sure losing action. That is neither what the law intends nor what players can or should be expected to do. If we're not careful, we will be driven to the conclusion that L72B1 precludes an offender from keeping any good score he might get subsequent to his infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 14 23:50:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:50:15 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11288 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:50:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA13917 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA04975 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809141353.JAA04975@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > It is certainly a modern idea that authority is not trusted. Well, not entirely modern, depending on where you are from and what time scale you consider "modern." I don't doubt that the idea has gained popularity in the UK over the last couple of decades. > In the EBU any appeal that is heard is recorded on an Appeal Form. > These are collected and scrutinised... An admirable system. I wish we had something like it here. > I believe that the ACBL would benefit from enabling L12C3. I do not > think that they need to re-write the Law before it is usable but I do > believe that guidelines in its use, or even more strongly, regulations > covering its use, would be required for them to enable without fear of > its misuse. This is perhaps a helpful idea. Can the ACBL, in its role as Zonal Authority, enable L12C3 while also instituting regulations specifying how SO's are to use it? Would the SO's be bound by such regulations? Maybe it doesn't matter, though. I don't really care what the clubs do, and if the ACBL enables L12C3 under specific regulations for its use in the ACBL's own tournaments, that could indeed be a benefit. On the other hand, I'd like to see the regulations proposed. Does the EBU have written rules for use of 12C3? Or are they distributed via the AC training and review procedures, which we don't have? If the ACBL were going to make only one change in its options, I'd recommend that they look at L16A1 before L12C3. That seems of more practical value. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:04:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:04:43 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11341 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:04:37 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA27661 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914100642.007fde70@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:06:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:46 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >> 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? >> This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether >> to double us or bid his slam. > >This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during auction >or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. What about the lawbook? Isn't a player entitled to refer to the lawbook, or have the Laws read to him as in the case of a ruling? Law 77 would be helpful in this case. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:09:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:09:23 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11358 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:09:15 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA15085 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA05007 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:12:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809141412.KAA05007@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > Seventh Extract from Minutes of WBFLC in Lille > > " Actions authorised in the laws > The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an > action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, > other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. I think this may be directed at something I started. I have never said "legitimate" in the sense of "authorized" or proper procedure. I have said "not forbidden," meaning that such actions would not automatically incur a penalty. > The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws > states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not > specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be > deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is > used in the auction or the play. " Of course I fully endorse this. Ordering a beer is extraneous, and it is wildly unlikely that it will give any information relevant to the play, but if it does so in some rare case, using the information is an infraction. I would apply exactly the same rule to other "extraneous" actions, even ones that are likely to give relevant information. If they do so, penalize them under L73B1 or penalize use of the information under L73C or 16A. But do not give a penalty when no useful information is transmitted, even if the same act *under different circumstances* would have transmitted useful information. Is my position really so far from the LC's? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:18:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:18:53 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13654 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:18:45 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00953; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:21:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA16452; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:21:38 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07807; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:21:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:21:36 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809141421.PAA07807@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, timg@maine.rr.com Subject: 2 of 2 was Re: Two questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I have two unrelated Laws questions. I shall consider only the second > 2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the OBOOT > is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO show? > That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled to the > information that he has clubs? > > Tim If RHO opens before anyone has bid and this is not accepted then LHO is silenced, L21B. So there is not much interest in the meaning of 2C bid by LHO. If you meant LHO opens 1C -- not accepted -- and then bid 2C over 1C, then we are in the ambit of "the willner doctine" (?) Assuming LHO's 1C was natural, RHO must pass at this first call, L21A2a. LHO`s 1C bid is UI for RHO, L16C2. But the fact the RHO must pass is AI to both LHO and RHO. The line of argument I favour is: Since your side can pass out 2C, general bridge knowledge tells RHO that 2C by LHO is natural. aliter: The agreement that 2C is Michaels probably only applies when RHO is free to act. They do not have an agreement in this position. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:20:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:20:32 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13674 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:20:25 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA15016 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA05026 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:23:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809141423.KAA05026@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Convention definition X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > What's needed is wording that clearly contradicts those who would argue > that a normal 1S opening bid carries the specific message that opener does > not have 7+ hearts, diamonds or clubs, and is therefore a convention (a > rather extreme example, but subtler ones abound). I agree that this is what is needed if a specific definition is intended. (Personally, I rather liked the 1987 definition, but I admit it was subject to interpretation.) I have suggested adding, after "overall strength," "or the order in which suits will be bid." Does this suffice? Of course it makes canape bids not a convention (as long as they promise three cards in the suit named), but I rather like that result. I predict not everyone will. Maybe we should put the discussion off until 2006? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:23:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:23:42 +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 AAA13695 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:23:35 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA28822 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914102543.00809880@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:25:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: 2 of 2 was Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <199809141421.PAA07807@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:21 PM 9/14/98 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >I shall consider only the second > >> 2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the OBOOT >> is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO show? >> That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled to the >> information that he has clubs? >If RHO opens before anyone has bid and this is not accepted >then LHO is silenced, L21B. So there is not much interest >in the meaning of 2C bid by LHO. > >If you meant LHO opens 1C -- not accepted -- and then bid 2C over 1C, >then we are in the ambit of "the willner doctine" (?) Sorry, I did mean LHO. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:31:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:31:49 +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 AAA13721 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:31:43 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA25486 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:34:41 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914163254.00957720@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:32:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:36 14-09-98 -0400, you wrote: >I have two unrelated Laws questions. > >1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? >This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether >to double us or bid his slam. > >2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the OBOOT >is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO show? >That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled to the >information that he has clubs? > >Tim > > hi a) see 40e2, footnote. it is thus forbidden b) 31b lho should pass forever. funny indeed that L16c2 isnt appl. here. Also if you decide to 'do away with the 1c bid by bidding yourself'is is illegal info i think. hope this will help you . regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 00:54:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:54:01 +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 AAA13791 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:53:54 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA24779 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:56:08 +0200 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:56:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Tim Goodwin Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980914100642.007fde70@maine.rr.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 03:46 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >> 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? > >> This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether > >> to double us or bid his slam. > > > >This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during auction > >or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. > > What about the lawbook? Isn't a player entitled to refer to the lawbook, Reading L77 would, IMHO, be equivalent to an aid in technique. > or have the Laws read to him as in the case of a ruling? Certainly not all the laws, just the ones relevant to this infraction. Or do you really want the TD to start every ruling with "Duplicate contract bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards" and ending a couple of hours later with "further appeal may be taken to the national authority."? 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 Tue Sep 15 01:00:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:00:34 +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 BAA13822 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:00:27 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA13465 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914110426.00691b78@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:04:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <9w4iLIAuVG$1EwR5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <35FA3568.D6294666@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:38 AM 9/14/98 +0100, David wrote: > Where is all this leading, do I hear you ask [well, apart from those >who have deleted this article and gone on to the next one!]? It is >this business of L12C3. I am amazed at the arguments against this Law >from t'other side of the pond. It sounds as though you would expect an >AC, given powers under L12C3, to go immediately mad. Not go mad, merely stay mad. The perception is that they are mad now, and enabling L12C3 would be analogous to removing their straitjacket and letting them cause far more damage than they can under current conditions. >Do you think there >is no control and they do what they like? Precisely. Or, rather, that is the general perception of tournament players throughout the ACBL. This is based on a long history of horror stories, so I am prepared to grant that it may be a bit exaggerated. But it is only very recently that the ACBL has even begun to attempt to exercise any control over their ACs at all, and there is as yet no sign of anything changing (except, perhaps, at NABCs, but see my remarks below). > In the EBU any appeal that is heard is recorded on an Appeal Form. >These are collected and scrutinised by the Laws & Ethics Committee [via >a couple of screeners]. If an Appeals Committee does something >outlandish then they will be asked to explain, and it may be commented >on in print. If it is felt that Appeal members are not doing a >reasonable job they are unlikely to be used again. In fact, this is >incredibly rare: we find a very high standard of effort from our Appeals >Committees, and they only tend to go very wrong when there are no >experienced members in the more local events. What our European friends may not appreciate is the sheer size and extent of the ACBL. On any given weekend, there are dozens of ACBL-sanctioned bridge tournaments going on throughout North America. Here on BLML, most of the discussion of AC rulings has been about rulings made at North American Championships (NABCs, of which there are three each year). Horror stories from NABC ACs notwithstanding, the fact is that they are kept in check by being recorded, written up, reviewed, commented on, etc., and so there is some hope that, over time, this might result in improved ACs -- at NABCs. But below the NABC level, AC decisions aren't even recorded, much less written up, reviewed and commented on. The AC chairman reports a score change verbally to the scoring TD, who changes the score, and that's the end of the matter. 99.9% of AC decisions made at ACBL tournaments are not made at NABCs. 99.9% of ACBL members' experiences with NABCs did not take place at NABCs. The typical ACBL member out there, who has no reason to trust ACs, has never even been to an NABC. The egregious ACBL AC decisions that make it to BLML or r.g.b are overwhelmingly drawn from NABCs and other major tournaments, and pale in comparison to what goes on at the smaller local tournaments, where they consider themselves very lucky to have even a single individual available to sit on an AC who might remotely be considered qualified to do so at the NABC level. In this context, it seems to me, the differences between ACBLers and Europeans regarding L12C3, and the granting of decision-making power to ACs in general, are much more understandable. 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 Sep 15 01:14:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:14:24 +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 ESMTP id BAA13870 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:14:16 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIaNO-0005eB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:17:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:16:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19980914083615.00801450@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >I have two unrelated Laws questions. > >1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? >This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether >to double us or bid his slam. > No, no mechanical aids. Law 40 footnote >2. This weekend my RHO opened 1C out of turn (I was dealer). If the OBOOT >is not accepted and I decide to open 1C, what does a 2C bid by LHO show? that you should call the director. LHO is silenced! >That is, if he plays Micheals, for instance, is his partner entitled to the >information that he has clubs? > > If of course you meant RHO bidding 2C then (pace Richard) it is either lead directing, or a suit, and it doesn't matter what LHO thinks. RHO thinks it is the best he can do on the hand. No doubt someone will adjust the score if it's a psyche :)))))))) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 01:14:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:14:31 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13876 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:14:20 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIaNP-00021n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:16:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bidding box regulations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >>David Martin: >>> >>> > Of course in view of L25A, there is little (no?) practical difference >>> > between a call that was "made" but changed without pause for thought >>> > and a call that was not "made" in the first place. > > Unless the call is an infraction, of course. I have just had a jolly >weekend acting as a gopher for mamos in an international trial. 14 >tables, barometer scoring, software. mamos spent >the first 13 hours struggling with the software, while I stripped >boards. > > What is "stripping boards", do I hear you ask? Well you might! We >have a little habit in England [used to be in Wales also, but they have >gone sensible recently] of providing a written copy of the hand on a >thing called a curtain card, which goes in with the 13 cards into the >pocket of the board. They need to be removed at the end of play, and it >takes longer than you would think when you have a lot of boards! > > Anyway, after that came the night. mamos used this time to put in >all the adjustments the software had not allowed him earlier - >apparently he does not need sleep. He did snarl a bit on the next day. >All's well that ends well - he brought his charming girlfriend along to >help next day. "Are you any good at stripping" I asked tactfully - and >she was! > > The point of all this is that several things appeared that seemed >suitable for BLML. The simplest one is to just see whether we are >agreed on this bidding box business. Someone took a bid part-way out of >the box but it was not his turn to bid. We changed our regulations in >line with elsewhere on 1st Sep so the bid is made when it is removed >from the box apparently intentionally. The bottom of the bidding card >was higher than the top of the box but it was not higher than the >bidding cards that were left in the box - they still overlapped it. Was >the bid made, thus making it a bid out of rotation? > I have been ruling the bid is made when the bid clears the box, not when it clears the rest of the cards in the box (otherwise 7NT suffers an extra penalty as it clearly IS made when the cards clear the box) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 01:16:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:16:17 +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 BAA13900 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:16:10 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA02754 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914111818.00805750@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:18:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19980914100642.007fde70@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Or >do you really want the TD to start every ruling with "Duplicate contract >bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards" and ending a couple of hours >later with "further appeal may be taken to the national authority."? No. I basically want to know whether the lawbook is an exception to the memory aids rule. Can a player refer to the rulebook> Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 01:30:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:30:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13973 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:30:23 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIacu-0006xe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:33:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:48:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: <3606fb25.8224446@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: >>>1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. >> Clubs are specified: clubs are not specified by another bid from the >>same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a club. >The EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws by Grattan Endicott and Bent >Keith Hansen disagrees. It says that the TD > >"must place it in one of two categories - either: > >(a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than >one suit all of which were specified; or > >(b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, >one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit." > >This is the way I rule, and I thought it was also the standard >elsewhere. Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan EndicottSecretary, WBF Laws Committee. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be >read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both >'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. >This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified >with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) >laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ It is very difficult to persuade people that the Laws do not mean what they say. No doubt this is what the Laws Commission meant but it is not what the Law says nor is it intuitively correct IMO. If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H has related to a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That is most people's understanding of the English language IMO. It appears from the above reply that this problem was known with the 1987 Laws: why was the 1997 Laws not changed to clarify? As far as Jesper is concerned I *very* much doubt whether it is the standard to rule this way. Interpretation of the Laws is only usually sought for difficult points. This thread was started [and my guess would be Max's enquiry] to find out whether clubs and diamonds were specified. When a TD rules, he reads his Law book: he only reads supplemental papers or works from other sources when he finds the Law book unclear. I would have thought that while people might find this Law unclear as to the minor people would find it clear that spades was specified. For the people out there who understand the rules of English better than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one suit is specified out of two? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 01:34:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:35:20 +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 AAA13758 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:35:14 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA16151 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA05055 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809141438.KAA05055@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2 of 2 was Re: Two questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > If you meant LHO opens 1C -- not accepted -- and then bid 2C over 1C, > then we are in the ambit of "the willner doctine" (?) > > Assuming LHO's 1C was natural, RHO must pass at this first call, L21A2a. > LHO`s 1C bid is UI for RHO, L16C2. But the fact the RHO must pass is > AI to both LHO and RHO. > > The line of argument I favour is: > Since your side can pass out 2C, general bridge knowledge tells > RHO that 2C by LHO is natural. > aliter: > The agreement that 2C is Michaels probably only applies when RHO > is free to act. They do not have an agreement in this position. I don't know why the above is "the Willner doctrine," but I agree that the knowledge that a player must pass is AI for everyone. We would want to look carefully at L72B1 or (for an insufficient bid) L27B1b. In particular, if an insufficient bid creates an auction the offenders could never have had without an infraction, any favorable result should almost automatically be adjusted. For other infractions (e.g. BOOR), we need to examine "could have known." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 01:46:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:46:24 +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 BAA14022 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:46:18 +1000 Received: from client86b3.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.179] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zIasJ-000754-00; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:49:12 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Law 26 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddfdd$8d8aeb20$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; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:57:25 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07923 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:55:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809141555.KAA07923@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:55:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David wrote: > > > Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the > >time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the > >time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could > >gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a > >weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". > > If I bash 3NT opposite a barred partner, I am hoping that he will have a > hand on which 3NT is a possible make. If he does, I will have gained a > huge advantage by not having a normal auction to 3NT, leaving my opponents > to lead and defend blindly. Indeed, isn't that exactly what I'm hoping for > when I bash 3NT? Obviously, I "could have known" when I silenced my > partner that this scenario "would be likely" to occur. But it's more than this. I interpret "could have known" as something like "had some reason to suspect"--that is, there must be some significant reason to think the good outcome is a reasonable possibility. Committing an infraction and then bashing 3NT is not an example of this--I have no reason to think that partner has a hand which will both score better in 3NT _and_ be such that an normal auction to 3NT will give information that will produce an unfavorable lead. The chances of that are minimal, and nothing in the auction suggests that it is likely. [If, somehow, the auction _has_ suggested that it is likely, then I would rule "could have known...", just as in cases where an insufficient bid is followed (conveniently) by a bid which looks like a good contract but was systematically impossible for that pair.] OTOH, a psyche is the sort of bid where the primary danger is that partner will bid on under the assumption you really had your bid. A silenced partner cannot bid. Ergo, there is a real, obvious, and tangible benefit to silencing partner before you psyche. Ergo, a person who commits an insufficient bid could have known that it would be to his advantage to do so _if he follows it with a psyche_. Let me try again (for some reason I feel inarticulate on this List). "Could have known" requires some clear positive reason to think a benefit will be produced by barring partner, not just a blind and random hope that partner has a specific hand-type he has not shown. I have clear positive reason to think that barring partner from bidding will be beneficial if I am going to psyche. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 02:15:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:15:10 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14303 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:15:03 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA16213 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914121904.0069c380@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:19:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 In-Reply-To: <199809140436.VAA05886@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:34 PM 9/13/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I have been under the impression that if the NOS could not obtain a >better score by "playing bridge" (or whatever phrase you want to >use for not doing something really stupid for their level of >ability), then they get full redress (most favorable result that >was likely absent the infraction) no matter what they do. > >For instance, if a cold slam is bid by misuse of UI and the NOS >revokes to permit an overtrick, they had no easy path to a better >score than an opposing game contract. Despite the revoke, the >damage (cold slam bid) was a consequence of the infraction. Restore >that damage (game bid, not slam), but not the subsequent damage >(the revoke stays). If the slam would certainly have gone down >without the revoke, no redress. >The NOS keep their result, the score is adjusted for the OS only. > >Therefore, if EW had revoked (surely an egregious act, BTW) to let >5H make in Case #35 (e.g., after declarer lays down the ace of >hearts), they still get their +620 score for 4S because there was >no easy way for them to score more than that after the infraction. > >Opinions please. While I remain no fan of the use of the Kaplan doctrine, Marv's explanation of the doctrine itself is dead on. Kaplan's detailed exposition of the doctrine appears in an editorial in TBW for August 1973. The last example he cites virtually echos Marv's last paragraph: "[T]he N-S score should be adjusted to +620 even if their bid was the most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man... the damage was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction." Kaplan's point is that an egregious error must "break the connection" between infraction and damage, and that this cannot be the case if the infraction would have damaged the NOs even absent the egregious error. The unfortunately all too common belief that any sufficiently egregious error committed after the infraction should result in lack of redress for the NOs is a very long way from what Kaplan intended. 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 Sep 15 02:15:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:15:52 +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 CAA14317 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:15:44 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10877 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:13:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809141613.LAA10877@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:13:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text 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: Adam Wildavsky > > To: Herman De Wael > > > > If possible I'd like to keep the L12C3 discussion separate. Playing in > the > > ACBL I have no experience with L12C3. I was under the impression, though, > > that it would be used seldom, and then only to provide equity where the > > committee believes L12C2 fails to, or where the committee cannot agree on > > how to apply the 12C2 criteria. Since L12C2 can only be used by > committees, > > not directors, I'd assumed it must be used seldom. Otherwise a pair could > > go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more > > favorable than the one assigned by the directors. > > > ++++ I wanted 12C3 to be added rather to 93B3 but EK had his way. It is > simply a tool of the AC. A pair is entitled to appeal an adjustment if they > consider it acts unfairly upon them and they are entitled to be aware that > the AC has the 12C3 powers. That does not remove the risk that the > appeal will be found to lack merit (footnote to Law 92A). 12C3 should be > used as often as the AC considers it will allow of nearer equity on the > hand than 12C2 does. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > Notice that this means that L12C2 is void as soon as any matter is taken to committee. It is logically impossible for a committee to think that a ruling under L12C2 is more equitable than one under L12C3. Ergo, all AC's should ignore C2 once the matter is referred to them, except possibly to evaluate charges of Director error. Of course, a committee might decide that C2 coincidentally provided equity, in which case their C3 ruling would coincide with what a C2 ruling would have been. This sounds to me like saying "the penalty for arson shall be exactly 100 days in jail, unless the judge thinks it should be some other number, larger or smaller, or some other punishment entirely." That having been said, I actually approve of the idea behind L12C3, and wish the ACBL would approve it [while giving directions as to its expected application]. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 02:20:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:20:04 +1000 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14343 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:19:56 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-77.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [209.64.189.77]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20894486 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35FD43A2.DFD2F82F@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:26:10 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually, I have an intense interest in this item of discussion. Earlier this year it came to my attention and I posted to the group that the ACBL interprets an opening suit bid which is natural, says nothing about any suit other than the suit named, says nothing about the number of honors held other than they are at least adequate [which includes unlimited] to open the bidding at the one level and the bid is non forcing- is a convention that must be alerted. Further, when asked to explain the alert [and this happens with great frequency] a thorough rendition of the complete opening system agreements must be given. I concur that you are quite right in assessing the committee's desire to not address such a topic, but if it should, I would be interested in what result it brings. Personally, I have some feedback as to the effect of the ACBL's policy: To report the practical aspects of complying with the policy I have found the following- a. the opponents find it irritating [responses range in level from 'why are you wasting my time' to intense abuse] b. it typically adds about 1 to 2 minutes to an auction c. it takes so much brain power to give the explanation that it makes it impossible to play well and the explanation rarely is made correctly because of its length and details Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > ---------- > > From: Jan Kamras > > To: Grattan ; blml > > > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > > Date: 13 September 1998 21:20 > > > > Grattan > > > > I know you don't want to revisit this, > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say > that > > > in my view the English is clear: > > > > I agree this is a sensible/logical interpretation. > >. In your 2S example, they consider > > it a "convention" even if it shows *only* S, arguing along the > lines > > that it then *also* has the meaning of lacking another long > suit! > > They also argue that a normal, non-canape, 1H opening is a > convention > > since it has the *additional* meaning that you have no longer > suit than > > H! > > ++==++ This particular point is the one on which the WBFLC > pronounced in Lille. I have circulated the decision as my fifth > extract on BLML ++==++ > > > > Finally, some consider the sentence about "a bid that shows a > certain > > hcp-count is not a convention..." to mean that unlimited bids > *are* conventions. > > ++==++ I have missed seeing any such suggestion so I did not > include it in my papers for Lille. So the Committee has not > looked at it this time.However, they were a little impatient even > with what I took to them, apparently not believing anybody > could be serious about it. And I would bank on it they would > be even more dismissive of this one; there is a danger internet > debate will be disregarded if it spends its time chasing > butterflies. To answer your question, WBFLC has never > considered the point and this is surely because it has not > thought it worth the time that might be spent on it. > ~~ Grattan ~~ > ++==++ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 02:22:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:22:51 +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 CAA14366 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:22:46 +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 JAA28673; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809141625.JAA28673@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:21:41 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > mlfrench wrote: > > >Now, there remains a problem. Neither the French definition nor the > >restated English definition catches the conventions that name a > >playable denomination while also saying something specific about > >one or more other denominations. I don't know how to fit that into > >the restatement, so I add a sentence: > > > >A bid that is not otherwise a convention becomes one if it conveys > >something specific about a denomination other than the one named. > > > >No doubt that could be improved ("something specific"?), but you > >get the idea. > > It seems to me that it was wording along these lines ("convey a meaning not > necessarily related to the denomination named") that gave people the > opportunity to subvert the obvious intention of the laws regarding > conventions, and, I would assume, led to the rewriting of the definition in > the first place. > > What's needed is wording that clearly contradicts those who would argue > that a normal 1S opening bid carries the specific message that opener does > not have 7+ hearts, diamonds or clubs, and is therefore a convention (a > rather extreme example, but subtler ones abound). > > I realized (as I wrote) that "something specific" was not specific enough, but lack the ability to put the thought into better words. However, I would say that your example is not a "specific" message, but merely a negative inference. "Specific" means to me something like "also shows four or more clubs," or "shows a two-suited hand, second suit unknown," i.e., something positive. Maybe someone could suggest a better way to word the sentence? All I want to do is put into clearer English (for us Americans) the intent of the current definition. I am not suggesting a change to the definition, which is a side issue. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 02:31:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:31:11 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14413 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:31:01 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13269 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:28:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809141628.LAA13269@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:28:59 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be > >read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both > >'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. > >This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified > >with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) > >laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > > > It is very difficult to persuade people that the Laws do not mean what > they say. No doubt this is what the Laws Commission meant but it is not > what the Law says nor is it intuitively correct IMO. > > If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H has related to > a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That is most > people's understanding of the English language IMO. > > It appears from the above reply that this problem was known with the > 1987 Laws: why was the 1997 Laws not changed to clarify? > > As far as Jesper is concerned I *very* much doubt whether it is the > standard to rule this way. Interpretation of the Laws is only usually > sought for difficult points. This thread was started [and my guess > would be Max's enquiry] to find out whether clubs and diamonds were > specified. When a TD rules, he reads his Law book: he only reads > supplemental papers or works from other sources when he finds the Law > book unclear. I would have thought that while people might find this > Law unclear as to the minor people would find it clear that spades was > specified. > > For the people out there who understand the rules of English better > than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to > specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one > suit is specified out of two? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ FWIW, at the very least David isn't alone in his interpretation. The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" booklet says: "If the withdrawn call shows two suits but only one is specified (opener bids 1H, LHO bids a Michaels 2H showing spades and a minor and changes his call to 1NT), it becomes a judgment call for the Director unless the second suit is identified later in the auction. If the bidding does not make it clear which minor the offender holds, then the lead penalty would apply only to spades, the only suit specified by the offender's illegal call." -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 02:37:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:37:31 +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 CAA14448 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:37:24 +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 JAA00359; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809141639.JAA00359@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "Tim Goodwin" Cc: Subject: Re: Two questions Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:36:27 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? > > This came up a few years ago when an opponent was trying to decide whether > > to double us or bid his slam. > > This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during auction > or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. > The newly-added second sentence of the footnote changes the traditional game of bridge to an "open book" exercise in cryptoanalysis: "However, sponsoring organizations may...allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 03:02:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:02:59 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14552 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:02:52 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lc417.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.39]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28523 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914130422.00720500@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:04:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <199809141613.LAA10877@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM 9/14/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > Notice that this means that L12C2 is void as soon as any matter is >taken to committee. It is logically impossible for a committee to think >that a ruling under L12C2 is more equitable than one under L12C3. Ergo, >all AC's should ignore C2 once the matter is referred to them, except >possibly to evaluate charges of Director error. > Of course, a committee might decide that C2 coincidentally >provided equity, in which case their C3 ruling would coincide with what a >C2 ruling would have been. > This sounds to me like saying "the penalty for arson shall be >exactly 100 days in jail, unless the judge thinks it should be some other >number, larger or smaller, or some other punishment entirely." > > That having been said, I actually approve of the idea behind >L12C3, and wish the ACBL would approve it [while giving directions as to >its expected application]. > See Lille#35 for why C3 is unworkable. For once, the ACBL deserves credit for a well-reasoned decision in the application of the Laws. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 03:13:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:13:43 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14593 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:13:37 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA18260 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914131738.006f3828@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:17:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: References: <3606fb25.8224446@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:48 PM 9/14/98 +0100, David wrote: > For the people out there who understand the rules of English better >than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to >specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one >suit is specified out of two? Normal English usage will not help us here. American Heritage Dictionary: "Specify: 1. To state explicitly. 2. To include in a specification." By the rules of English usage, in the statement "2S shows spades plus another suit" only spades have been "specified", whereas in the statement "2S shows spades plus either hearts, diamonds or clubs" all four suits have been "specified". This, quite obviously, is not a distinction the writers of L26A intended to make, so we are left with the question of what *they* meant when they chose the word "specified". 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 Sep 15 03:15:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:15:54 +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 DAA14625 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:15:46 +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 KAA05479; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809141718.KAA05479@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:15:12 -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: > > Lately, the ACBL, under the leadership of Rich Colker, has been responding > to their members' concerns by creating a flurry of guidelines for ACs. Please tell us where these guidelines may be viewed. The only ones I know about are in the *Blueprint for Appeals* that Rich wrote and included in the Dallas NABC (spring 1997) casebook. That would hardly constitute a "flurry," so what else has been promulgated? AFAIK, any such guidelines are not issued officially by the ACBL, but informally by Rich Colker to assist ACs in doing their job correctly. The ACBL's *Handbook of Appeals* does not include them, as it should. > These are carefully designed to place additional constraints on ACs, > circumscribing and reducing their scope for exercising their individual > judgments. You really should give some examples related to this extraordinary statement. I see nothing like this from Rich in the casebooks, except that emphasis is placed on keeping ACs within the bounds of the Laws and ACBL regulations while "exercising their individual judgments." If anything, I find Rich to be a little too liberal in this regard, for instance defending the TD/AC practice of mixing artificial and assigned score adjustments (e.g., average plus or 620, whichever is better). > In that atmosphere, anything along the lines of activating > L12C3 would be seen as a step away from where the ACBL is trying to go. The ACBL is trying to get L12, without L12C3, implemented satisfactorily, which is hard enough. I don't see the ACBL going anywhere further than following the Laws in better fashion than has been the case. Or is that what you mean? > > Whether the ACBL's new AC guidelines are sensible or not is fodder for > another thread. > When we see them, that would indeed be a good thread. One thing about Americans, they are not hesitant about critical self-examination. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 03:42:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:42:14 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14678 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:42:07 +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 NAA19148 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914134609.006f96f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:46:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809141555.KAA07923@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 AM 9/14/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > But it's more than this. I interpret "could have known" as >something like "had some reason to suspect"--that is, there must be some >significant reason to think the good outcome is a reasonable possibility. That is my position exactly. As I stated it previously, L72B1 makes perfect sense if you read "offender could have known" as French for "offender, in the opinion of the committee, likely knew". >Committing an infraction and then bashing 3NT is not an example of this--I >have no reason to think that partner has a hand which will both score >better in 3NT _and_ be such that an normal auction to 3NT will give >information that will produce an unfavorable lead. The chances of that >are minimal, and nothing in the auction suggests that it is likely. [If, >somehow, the auction _has_ suggested that it is likely, then I would rule >"could have known...", just as in cases where an insufficient bid is followed >(conveniently) by a bid which looks like a good contract but was >systematically impossible for that pair.] > OTOH, a psyche is the sort of bid where the primary danger is that >partner will bid on under the assumption you really had your bid. A >silenced partner cannot bid. Ergo, there is a real, obvious, and tangible >benefit to silencing partner before you psyche. Ergo, a person who >commits an insufficient bid could have known that it would be to his >advantage to do so _if he follows it with a psyche_. > Let me try again (for some reason I feel inarticulate on this >List). "Could have known" requires some clear positive reason to think a >benefit will be produced by barring partner, not just a blind and random >hope that partner has a specific hand-type he has not shown. I have clear >positive reason to think that barring partner from bidding will be >beneficial if I am going to psyche. Where I disagree is in finding any significant distinction between the bash and the psych. When (as in the original case for this thread) you open a short suit in a bad hand opposite a barred partner, you are hoping that (a) partner does not hold the suit, so you will have succeeded in picking off the opponents suit and leaving them without recourse to their normal methods, and (b) partner does not hold the sort of hand on which the opponents would be likely to come to a bad result absent the psych. How is this different from hoping that partner holds a hand which will make 3NT the right contract for your side? Besides having absolutely no assurance that the psych will produce any benefit, it clearly runs the risk of getting your side into big trouble, barred partner or no barred partner. Surely the 1H bidder in the original example could not have known that his opponents wouldn't just start doubling him, and wind up collecting a number for a top no matter what he did subsequent to his original psych. If L72A5 is to operate in these situations, it must permit the player who has committed an infraction and paid the penalty to do whatever he thinks will maximize his expected score, whether it be bash or psych. Whether L72B1 should override L72A5 in a given case can only be a matter of intent. The action actually chosen might, in some cases, shed light on the intent, but it cannot provide a presumptive surrogate just because there are those who consider any ruling that considers intent in any way anathema. You hold -/xxx/AKxxxxxx/Kx as dealer. Partner is barred from the auction. You choose to open 3NT. Are you bashing or psyching? 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 Sep 15 03:50:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:50:34 +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 DAA14735 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:50:28 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA7542 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:53:26 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980914195137.00944100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:51:37 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: <199809141628.LAA13269@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:28 14-09-98 -0500, you wrote: >David Stevenson >> >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >Grattan Endicott> >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be >> >read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both >> >'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. >> >This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified >> >with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) >> >laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ >> >> >> It is very difficult to persuade people that the Laws do not mean what >> they say. No doubt this is what the Laws Commission meant but it is not >> what the Law says nor is it intuitively correct IMO. >> >> If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H has related to >> a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That is most >> people's understanding of the English language IMO. >> >> It appears from the above reply that this problem was known with the >> 1987 Laws: why was the 1997 Laws not changed to clarify? >> >> As far as Jesper is concerned I *very* much doubt whether it is the >> standard to rule this way. Interpretation of the Laws is only usually >> sought for difficult points. This thread was started [and my guess >> would be Max's enquiry] to find out whether clubs and diamonds were >> specified. When a TD rules, he reads his Law book: he only reads >> supplemental papers or works from other sources when he finds the Law >> book unclear. I would have thought that while people might find this >> Law unclear as to the minor people would find it clear that spades was >> specified. >> >> For the people out there who understand the rules of English better >> than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to >> specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one >> suit is specified out of two? >> >> -- >> David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > > FWIW, at the very least David isn't alone in his interpretation. >The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" booklet says: > > "If the withdrawn call shows two suits but only one is specified >(opener bids 1H, LHO bids a Michaels 2H showing spades and a minor and >changes his call to 1NT), it becomes a judgment call for the Director >unless the second suit is identified later in the auction. If the bidding >does not make it clear which minor the offender holds, then the lead >penalty would apply only to spades, the only suit specified by the >offender's illegal call." > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > > Well, perhaps a sily question here, but what happens if he has misbid his suits. He promised spades+minors, but he actually has heart+minors. How do you handle that????? I think opps dont get the fair chance (look to the 6D problem). I tend to believe it should be beter to use 26B instead regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 04:40:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:40:56 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA14923 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:40:49 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA20958 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914144445.0069cfd8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:44:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809141718.KAA05479@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 AM 9/14/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Lately, the ACBL, under the leadership of Rich Colker, has been >responding >> to their members' concerns by creating a flurry of guidelines for >ACs. > >Please tell us where these guidelines may be viewed. The only ones >I know about are in the *Blueprint for Appeals* that Rich wrote and >included in the Dallas NABC (spring 1997) casebook. That would >hardly constitute a "flurry," so what else has been promulgated? I've seen much of the substance of the material Richard has prepared for the ACBL (he writes a "Committee Action" column for our unit newsletter), but have not seen the Dallas casebook, and don't know how much of what I've seen was there. My impression is that there may be more still to come. I used "flurry" to suggest that Richard has addressed a number and variety of issues, not necessarily to mean that he has done, or will do, so in a number of separate documents. >AFAIK, any such guidelines are not issued officially by the ACBL, >but informally by Rich Colker to assist ACs in doing their job >correctly. The ACBL's *Handbook of Appeals* does not include them, >as it should. I believe the intent is to eventually include them in the Handbook. The ACBL's past behavior suggests that they will carefully avoid putting an "official" imprimatur on whatever comes out, but it will, of course, be de facto official by virtue of publication in the Handbook, Bulletin, or some other "official" organ of the ACBL (like Don Oakie's rendering of the ACBL's position on psychs, which was published in the bulletin and subsequently reprinted in various editions of the Encyclopedia without ever having been formally designated as "official"). >> These are carefully designed to place additional constraints on >ACs, >> circumscribing and reducing their scope for exercising their >individual >> judgments. > >You really should give some examples related to this extraordinary >statement. I see nothing like this from Rich in the casebooks, >except that emphasis is placed on keeping ACs within the bounds of >the Laws and ACBL regulations while "exercising their individual >judgments." If anything, I find Rich to be a little too liberal in >this regard, for instance defending the TD/AC practice of mixing >artificial and assigned score adjustments (e.g., average plus or >620, whichever is better). It seems to me that the prevalent attitude, sadly, is that "keeping ACs within the bounds of the Laws and ACBL regulations" and "plac[ing] additional constrainst on ACs" amount to the same thing. >> In that atmosphere, anything along the lines of activating >> L12C3 would be seen as a step away from where the ACBL is trying >to go. > >The ACBL is trying to get L12, without L12C3, implemented >satisfactorily, which is hard enough. I don't see the ACBL going >anywhere further than following the Laws in better fashion than has >been the case. Or is that what you mean? Where the ACBL is going is in the direction of making AC rulings more uniform and consistent, away from allowing ACs to rely on their individual and potentially idiosyncratic judgments case to case. The ACBL isn't reacting to BLML-like concerns, but rather to a widespread lack of confidence in ACs by the rank and file membership who care little for the technical details of the laws. The impetus is coming from the perception, not that ACs make rulings in individual cases that contradict the laws or ACBL regulations, but rather that ACs make rulings in individual cases that contradict one another. 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 Sep 15 04:52:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:52:48 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f250.hotmail.com [207.82.251.141]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA14965 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:52:25 +1000 Received: (qmail 27898 invoked by uid 0); 14 Sep 1998 18:54:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19980914185425.27897.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.131.105 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:54:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.131.105] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two questions Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:54:24 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >> 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the >> auction? This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying >> to decide whether to double us or bid his slam. > >This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during >auction or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation >or technique. > Does that include the FLB? Because that includes a scoring table... Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 05:47:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:47:37 +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 FAA15110 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:47:26 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11793 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:45:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809141945.OAA11793@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:45:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 10:55 AM 9/14/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > > > But it's more than this. I interpret "could have known" as > >something like "had some reason to suspect"--that is, there must be some > >significant reason to think the good outcome is a reasonable possibility. > > That is my position exactly. As I stated it previously, L72B1 makes > perfect sense if you read "offender could have known" as French for > "offender, in the opinion of the committee, likely knew". Okay, we're in rough agreement so far... > Where I disagree is in finding any significant distinction between the bash > and the psych. When (as in the original case for this thread) you open a > short suit in a bad hand opposite a barred partner, you are hoping that (a) > partner does not hold the suit, so you will have succeeded in picking off > the opponents suit and leaving them without recourse to their normal > methods, and (b) partner does not hold the sort of hand on which the > opponents would be likely to come to a bad result absent the psych. How is > this different from hoping that partner holds a hand which will make 3NT > the right contract for your side? Let's put the case this way. Suppose you had some way of barring partner from bidding on any given auction. If you held, let us say, a balanced 15 count would you ban partner from the auction? No, clearly not--although there is some subset of hands where it would be to your advantage to set the contract now, you have no reason whatsoever to supoose that partner holds one of those hands, and there are even more hands where allowing partner to bid will get you to a better spot. So if you have that hand, commit an infraction that bans partner, and blast 3NT [probably what I'd blast with that] you're legally in the clear. Suppose, OTOH, you have a weakish hand with a heart void and decide to psyche 1H. Now you clearly _would_ implement the proceedures to ban partner, right? Ergo, you 'could have known' that banning partner would be to your advantage if you have decided to psyche. There's the difference. I would disallow any bid following an infraction if I was convinced that a player making such a bid would choose to have his partner banned from the auction if he could. I cannot read minds, so I don't know that that's what the player had in mind. I am sure, in the actual case that started this thread, that the idea to psyche didn't occur to the bidder until after the infraction had already been committed. But he _could have_ known that it would be beneficial. > Besides having absolutely no assurance that the psych will produce any > benefit, it clearly runs the risk of getting your side into big trouble, > barred partner or no barred partner. Surely the 1H bidder in the original But obviously there's a greater chance of a disaster with an unbarred partner. Again, _if_ I could magically bar partner from the bidding before I psyched, I would do it. Indeed, the fact that I cannot do it is one reason I don't psyche. > example could not have known that his opponents wouldn't just start > doubling him, and wind up collecting a number for a top no matter what he > did subsequent to his original psych. True. But, of course, any bid in any situation offers the possibility of disaster. > If L72A5 is to operate in these situations, it must permit the player who > has committed an infraction and paid the penalty to do whatever he thinks > will maximize his expected score, whether it be bash or psych. Whether But if you're going to psyche, barring partner is not a penalty at all--it is a bonus. > L72B1 should override L72A5 in a given case can only be a matter of intent. > The action actually chosen might, in some cases, shed light on the intent, > but it cannot provide a presumptive surrogate just because there are those > who consider any ruling that considers intent in any way anathema. > > You hold -/xxx/AKxxxxxx/Kx as dealer. Partner is barred from the auction. > You choose to open 3NT. Are you bashing or psyching? I don't know. But of course if you had bid 1S, I would know you were psyching and rule against you, and if you bid 3D I'd know you were bashing and let you have your result. The existence of a gray area doesn't make white black. [In this specific case I'd probably take this to be a 'bash'. If you play Gambling 3NT, and this would be a permitted 'gamble', then it's definately a bash.] > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 05:52:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:52:57 +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 FAA15161 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:52:51 +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 QAA23277 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980914155653.006f3b58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:56:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980914145038.0071cf24@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980914134609.006f96f4@pop.cais.com> <199809141555.KAA07923@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >At 01:46 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Eric wrote: > >>You hold -/xxx/AKxxxxxx/Kx as dealer. Partner is barred from the auction. >>You choose to open 3NT. Are you bashing or psyching? >> >You are bashing. Perhaps not showing great judgement, IMO, but hoping for >the best. Could you have known, or even suspected, at the time you barred >your partner, that this course would likely work out best? I don't think so. I could easily have suspected that if I had a normal auction I would reach 3NT in any case, and, if so, it will certainly work out better to bar partner and bid 3NT than to have an auction that's likely to reveal the opponents' best lead. >But as Grant points out, you might well have some advanced clue that >psyching opposite a barred partner would be successful. Yes, it is a risky >course and not everyone's cup of tea, but in the right circumstances, it >could be a big winner. It is in any case more attractive than psyching >opposite an un-barred partner, and that is the real problem. Obviously some >practitioners of this tactic would be able to honestly defend it as a >creative solution to a difficulty posed by their inadvertent error. But if >this is a legal tactic, other less scrupulous types will deliberately act >to bar partner in order to make comparatively risk-free psychs. My view is that if a player can "honestly defend it as a creative solution to a difficulty posed by their inadvertant error" he should not be punished merely for being more "creative" than a majority of AC members might have been in his position, whereas if he "deliberately act[s] to bar partner in order to make" any subsequent action, psych or otherwise, more attractive, he should get the book thrown at him. The difference is one of intent; the only way to judge the difference, however much we may not like the fact, is to rely on "apparent intent". >To allow a >situation where intentional infractions can be rewarded with perceived >advantages is not in the best interests of the game. Certainly true. That's why we have L72B2. This has nothing to do with whether we should apply L72B1 to inadvertent infractions. >In contrast, I have little worry about anybody _deliberately_ barring >partner with your example hand in order to bid 3NT. This amounts to a >gambling 3NT without the safety of the 4C runout. Where's the advantage in >that? Isn't that purely a bridge judgment? 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 Sep 15 06:48:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:48:25 +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 GAA15419 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:48:20 +1000 Received: from ip105.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.105]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980914205119.IIJB2535.fep4@ip105.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:51:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:51:17 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36008183.2141258@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, 14 Sep 1998 11:35:19 +0100, David Martin wrote: >>Second point, the psyche is part of >> the infraction and not subsequent to it. ###########=20 I don't understand that. The infraction was a Multi 2D opening out of turn. The psyche was a 1H call after the infraction had been dealt with. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 07:39:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 07:39:28 +1000 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15567 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 07:39:21 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-177.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [209.64.189.177]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21159639 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35FD8E7D.19DDE58A@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:45:33 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.freewwweb.com id RAA21159639 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For the people out there who understand the rules of English better than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one suit is specified out of two? -- I suspect that I am not one of those people who understand the rules of English better than you but you goad into it. When I read that part of=20 L26 closely, what it says is that when a withdrawn bid refers to more than one suit, but not all of the suits are identified, declarer gets to pick from more options. [this is not the official interpretation, being you get different options]. But if I do not read so closely, I may not get that meaning and want to rule that since one suit has been specified, then the narrower options apply. In other words, I can see what it says, but I am not so sure that the writer really mans all of the ramifications- 'I mean, there are so many, could he have really meant all of them?'. In answer to your question - : is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one suit is specified out of two? I believe that the context which it is presented that if "a condition is met" then it would apply, but not exclude from applying to another condition. I believe that this is the "normal and accepted English usage". Continuing, if there are further conditions stated, for instance, "except in the case of=85=85." This would take you to the named alternative and exclude the former. Do I get marks for answering your question? But, I guess that I am not yet done. Back to L26 Your question spurred me on to further analysis. In L26's case, there seems to be a of lack symmetry in that requiring the lead of a particular suit lasts for only that trick while the prohibition of a suit lasts until the lead is lost. The construction of the sentence makes one want to infer that both choices last until the lead is lost but the context [use of the word prohibition] makes it clear that they are separate. I am not saying that it is bad, just that I merely noticed it. It is apparent that there is more that is 'odd' with L26 than the providing the basis for ruling as to whether part A or B applies. Had I composed L26 I would clarify the antecedents and use words that leave little room for interpretation. It would read something like: -snip-=85 A. If the withdrawn call specified one or more known suits and 1. when the same player legally specifies any of those known suits, there is no penalty in those legally specified suits, but see L16C. 2. for any of those known suits that are not specified by the same player in the legal auction, then at the first turn to lead by the offender's partner, declarer may [penalty], select one such suit, requiring it to be lead one time; or select one such suit and forbid leading it, the prohibition shall continue until the offender's partner loses the lead. When the offending call specified that there is at least one unknown suit, see also L26B. B. When the withdrawn call refers no particular suit, or to one or more suits that are unknown, [penalty] at the first opportunity for the offender's partner to lead, declarer may select any suit and forbid leading it, the prohibition shall continue until the offender's partner loses the lead.=20 Comment. My translation reflects my idea as to how to best restore equity. It does deviate from what the words of the 97 laws- which make a distinction between [a] calls that specify known suits and [b] all other calls. This is important because when a call specifies a known suit plus an unknown suit, it falls into the category of [a] which L26A applies [contrary to Grattan's clarification]. Yet, L26A does not provide for the option of selecting any suit to prohibit when there is an unknown suit. But, the words are clear, this situation does not apply to L26B because 26A applies and L26B specifically says it applies to all other withdrawn calls. =20 Grattan's clarification: ### Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:18:06 +0100 From:=20 "Grattan Endicott" To:=20 "Jesper Dybdal" , Grattan Endicott wrote: >>1b. Same auction, but 2C=3Dclubs plus a higher-ranking suit. > ++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both 'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ ### In Grattan's clarification there still remains some gray area because the language suggests an 'either/or' but not ' this and/or that'---" If the suits are not all specified 26B applies." According to the words contained in L26A, it merely states that if the condition that "a suit was specified' then apply L26A. This contradicts Grattan's clarification. In this sentence, if we are referring to the situation that a suit has been specified and at least one has not, then all of the suits under discussion have not been specified and therefore L26A does not apply but L26B does. In Grattan's example, it just does not feel right that declarer does not get the option to require a club lead in addition to the option of forbid any suit by virtue that the offender has a special agreement which is highly informative. Also, there are cases when the offender bids another suit it does not necessarily follow that it is an 'unknown suit'. The inferences of multiway bids are great and to arbitrarily limit the scope of the lead penalty seems to not address the potential damage to declarer.=20 David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > >>>1b. Same auction, but 2C=3Dclubs plus a higher-ranking suit. >=20 > >> Clubs are specified: clubs are not specified by another bid from th= e > >>same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a club. >=20 > >The EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws by Grattan Endicott and Bent > >Keith Hansen disagrees. It says that the TD > > > >"must place it in one of two categories - either: > > > >(a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than > >one suit all of which were specified; or > > > >(b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, > >one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit." > > > >This is the way I rule, and I thought it was also the standard > >elsewhere. >=20 > It is very difficult to persuade people that the Laws do not mean wha= t > they say. No doubt this is what the Laws Commission meant but it is no= t > what the Law says nor is it intuitively correct IMO. I hope that this true. > If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H has related to > a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That is most > people's understanding of the English language IMO. >=20 > It appears from the above reply that this problem was known with the > 1987 Laws: why was the 1997 Laws not changed to clarify? >=20 > As far as Jesper is concerned I *very* much doubt whether it is the > standard to rule this way. Interpretation of the Laws is only usually > sought for difficult points. This thread was started [and my guess > would be Max's enquiry] to find out whether clubs and diamonds were > specified. When a TD rules, he reads his Law book: he only reads > supplemental papers or works from other sources when he finds the Law > book unclear. I would have thought that while people might find this > Law unclear as to the minor people would find it clear that spades was > specified. >=20 > For the people out there who understand the rules of English better > than I: is it a normal and accepted English usage that a reference to > specified suit or suits would not refer to a situation where only one > suit is specified out of two? >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 08:10:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:10:12 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com (washington.dc.isx.com [205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15687 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:10:05 +1000 Received: from [207.226.97.46] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06784; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:13:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980914155653.006f3b58@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980914145038.0071cf24@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980914134609.006f96f4@pop.cais.com> <199809141555.KAA07923@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:08:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being intended as lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 08:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:40:24 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15728 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:40:18 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIhL1-0001Wy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:43:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:38:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980914134609.006f96f4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:55 AM 9/14/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > >> But it's more than this. I interpret "could have known" as >>something like "had some reason to suspect"--that is, there must be some >>significant reason to think the good outcome is a reasonable possibility. > >That is my position exactly. As I stated it previously, L72B1 makes >perfect sense if you read "offender could have known" as French for >"offender, in the opinion of the committee, likely knew". > >>Committing an infraction and then bashing 3NT is not an example of this--I >>have no reason to think that partner has a hand which will both score >>better in 3NT _and_ be such that an normal auction to 3NT will give >>information that will produce an unfavorable lead. The chances of that >>are minimal, and nothing in the auction suggests that it is likely. [If, >>somehow, the auction _has_ suggested that it is likely, then I would rule >>"could have known...", just as in cases where an insufficient bid is followed >>(conveniently) by a bid which looks like a good contract but was >>systematically impossible for that pair.] >> OTOH, a psyche is the sort of bid where the primary danger is that >>partner will bid on under the assumption you really had your bid. A >>silenced partner cannot bid. Ergo, there is a real, obvious, and tangible >>benefit to silencing partner before you psyche. Ergo, a person who >>commits an insufficient bid could have known that it would be to his >>advantage to do so _if he follows it with a psyche_. >> Let me try again (for some reason I feel inarticulate on this >>List). "Could have known" requires some clear positive reason to think a >>benefit will be produced by barring partner, not just a blind and random >>hope that partner has a specific hand-type he has not shown. I have clear >>positive reason to think that barring partner from bidding will be >>beneficial if I am going to psyche. > >Where I disagree is in finding any significant distinction between the bash >and the psych. When (as in the original case for this thread) you open a >short suit in a bad hand opposite a barred partner, you are hoping that (a) >partner does not hold the suit, so you will have succeeded in picking off >the opponents suit and leaving them without recourse to their normal >methods, and (b) partner does not hold the sort of hand on which the >opponents would be likely to come to a bad result absent the psych. How is >this different from hoping that partner holds a hand which will make 3NT >the right contract for your side? Your timing is wrong. It is the thought processes at the time of the original infraction that are relevant. Which is more likely of these two scenarios: I hold 2 HCP. I open out of turn, barring partner, knowing that I am intending to psyche if possible next. I hold 18 HCP. I open out of turn, barring partner, knowing that I am intending to bid 3NT if possible next. >Besides having absolutely no assurance that the psych will produce any >benefit, it clearly runs the risk of getting your side into big trouble, >barred partner or no barred partner. Surely the 1H bidder in the original >example could not have known that his opponents wouldn't just start >doubling him, and wind up collecting a number for a top no matter what he >did subsequent to his original psych. If you want to argue whether psyching is a good idea as a general proposition, I suggest RGB not BLML, lots of articles, and no decision before Xmas! >If L72A5 is to operate in these situations, it must permit the player who >has committed an infraction and paid the penalty to do whatever he thinks >will maximize his expected score, whether it be bash or psych. Whether >L72B1 should override L72A5 in a given case can only be a matter of intent. > The action actually chosen might, in some cases, shed light on the intent, >but it cannot provide a presumptive surrogate just because there are those >who consider any ruling that considers intent in any way anathema. > >You hold -/xxx/AKxxxxxx/Kx as dealer. Partner is barred from the auction. >You choose to open 3NT. Are you bashing or psyching? That's irrelevant: how did partner get barred? What were your thought processes then? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 08:43:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:43:35 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15743 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:43:29 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA09386 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA05518 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:46:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809142246.SAA05518@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grant C. Sterling" > Suppose, OTOH, you have a weakish hand with a heart void and > decide to psyche 1H. Now you clearly _would_ implement the proceedures to > ban partner, right? Ergo, you 'could have known' that banning partner > would be to your advantage if you have decided to psyche. The above quote identifies where the problem lies. _Given that you have decided to psych_, then of course it's helpful if you can bar partner. But the real question is whether the hand qualifies for "could have known." That is, would a reasonable player _expect_ that barring partner and then psyching would improve his score versus the expectation of bidding normally? I suppose if the hand is weak enough, or if the opponents are already in a strong auction, that might be so, but I don't think one could make a case that it is true in general. Letting partner bid might lead to a paying sacrifice, or the opponents might bid too high and go down on bad breaks, or the opponents might manage to double the psych and all corrections for a huge loss. But if you can make a case, on a given hand, that "bar partner and psych" is a likely winner versus normal bidding, then of course L72B1 calls for an adjustment. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 09:10:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:10:23 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15815 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:10:17 +1000 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:10:17 +1000 Received: (qmail 26873 invoked from network); 14 Sep 1998 23:13:18 -0000 Received: from pm02-077.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.77) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 14 Sep 1998 23:13:18 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980914190738.29f7aba0@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:15 AM 9/11/98 +0100, you wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>> If a player calls out of turn with a hand weak enough that he knows >>>that a psyche with partner silenced is with the odds, thus silencing >>>partner, and then does psyche *at his next chance to call* [usually the >>>*same* round] then I believe we should apply L23 or L72B1. > >>I am not entirely convinced by these arguments. The problem arises that >>whenever you have taken a course of action which silences partner then >>the proposal is that you cannot psyche because you could have known it >>might be to your advantage to have silenced partner. >> >>However, the law explicitly caters for the infraction (whatever it is) >>that silences partner. Fine. Penalty paid. And the law says that you >>may psyche. So you do. But I've never seen an adjustment where someone, >>say, undercalls and then bashes 3NT (which happens to make) ... and I >>don't see the difference. We are not being asked to make a bridge >>judgement here about whether the hand is weak or strong, we're just >>applying the laws as they are writ. >> >>Am I missing a fundamental point? > > Yes. It has to be a situation where you can envisage gaining at the >time of the infraction. Your bash of 3NT is quite different: at the >time he infracted there was no way to know that silencing partner could >gain. However, an infraction that silences partner plus a psyche on a >weak enough hand adds up to "could have known". > >-- could have known? At the time of the 1H bid s/he knows nothing about pd's hand he only know that the BOOT did not get accepted from the next player in turn to bid. I am worried that adobting a method that says could have known will only be applied when the result of the action was good. or in other words if you psyche you are only allowed to score 40% or minus 3 imp or worse if the actual result is better we apply could have known. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 10:40:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:53 +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 ESMTP id KAA15976 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIjDd-00063U-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:43:47 +0000 Message-ID: <9M6ik4Ck5a$1EwSe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:01:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Haglich wrote: >Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being intended as >lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit? There's no problem with the psyche in isolation, whatever its purpose. the problem may come from the earlier bid out of rotation. Hi Peter! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 10:40:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:50 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA15966 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIjDZ-00063W-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:43:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1c$gwtCx0a$1Ewy5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:56:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980914130422.00720500@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:13 AM 9/14/98 -0500, Grant wrote: >> Notice that this means that L12C2 is void as soon as any matter is >>taken to committee. It is logically impossible for a committee to think >>that a ruling under L12C2 is more equitable than one under L12C3. Ergo, >>all AC's should ignore C2 once the matter is referred to them, except >>possibly to evaluate charges of Director error. >> Of course, a committee might decide that C2 coincidentally >>provided equity, in which case their C3 ruling would coincide with what a >>C2 ruling would have been. >> This sounds to me like saying "the penalty for arson shall be >>exactly 100 days in jail, unless the judge thinks it should be some other >>number, larger or smaller, or some other punishment entirely." >> >> That having been said, I actually approve of the idea behind >>L12C3, and wish the ACBL would approve it [while giving directions as to >>its expected application]. >> >See Lille#35 for why C3 is unworkable. For once, the ACBL deserves credit >for a well-reasoned decision in the application of the Laws. I have read Lille #35. I do not see how this makes L12C3 unworkable. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 10:40:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:49 +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 ESMTP id KAA15965 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:40:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIjDZ-00063V-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:43:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:49:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809142246.SAA05518@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Grant C. Sterling" >> Suppose, OTOH, you have a weakish hand with a heart void and >> decide to psyche 1H. Now you clearly _would_ implement the proceedures to >> ban partner, right? Ergo, you 'could have known' that banning partner >> would be to your advantage if you have decided to psyche. >The above quote identifies where the problem lies. > >_Given that you have decided to psych_, then of course it's helpful if >you can bar partner. But the real question is whether the hand >qualifies for "could have known." That is, would a reasonable player >_expect_ that barring partner and then psyching would improve his score >versus the expectation of bidding normally? > >I suppose if the hand is weak enough, or if the opponents are already >in a strong auction, that might be so, but I don't think one could make >a case that it is true in general. That is exactly my point: on *this* hand I believe this approach is OK because the player had 2 HCP: I am not suggesting it would work generally. But that is all right. The more points he has, the less chance that it is a ploy that could have been intended. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:14:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:14:17 +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 LAA16092 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:14:06 +1000 Received: from default (ptp258.ac.net [205.138.55.167]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA27523 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809150117.VAA27523@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:45:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: <199809141353.JAA04975@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> In the EBU any appeal that is heard is recorded on an Appeal Form. >> These are collected and scrutinised... > >An admirable system. I wish we had something like it here. > We do at NABCs. An appeals form is filled out for each and every appeal. Each Committee Chairman must write a report that appears in a future Casebook. Rich and I scrutinize these very carefully and resolve any problems with the appropriate Committee Chairman. The Directors are getting more and more diligent about correctly filling them out. I have several very fat notebooks from the last 8 NABCs. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:14:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:14:47 +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 LAA16106 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:14:29 +1000 Received: from default (ptp258.ac.net [205.138.55.167]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA27527 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809150117.VAA27527@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:57:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There has been only one appeals case that has generated lengthy discussion regarding Law 12C3 in my memory. It is Case 16 from the Albuquerque. I thought is was quite an interesting case. Here it is in its entirety from the Casebook. Enjoy Linda CASE SIXTEEN Subject (Unauthorized Information): Another Type Of =93Multi=94 Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 1 Aug 97, Second Session Bd: 8=20 Dlr: West *S* AQJ32 Vul: None *H* A1087 *D* --- *C* K954 *S* K87 *S* 954 *H* Q5 *H* K942 *D* A98642 *D* Q5 *C* 32 *C* AQ107 =20 *S* 106 *H* J63 *D* KJ1073 *C* J86 West North East South 2*D*(1) 2*S* 3*H* All Pass =20 (1) Alerted; explained as Flannery The Facts: 3*H* went down four, plus 200 for N/S. West=92s 2*D* opening was Alerted and explained as Flannery (the partnership agreement); West subsequently passed East=92s 3*H* bid. The Director was called at the end of= the auction, when West announced to the table that he had forgotten his= agreement. The Director allowed play to continue. The Director examined the E/W convention card and found that the E/W agreement was that 2*D* was supposed to be Flannery. The Director considered West=92s action in passing 3*H* in light o= f the unauthorized information from East=92s Alert and explanation. Based upon the assumption that 3*H* might be considered a forcing bid, the contract was changed to 3NT by West down five, plus 250 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director=92s ruling. They contended that a 4*H*= bid by West was a more likely action than 3NT. Had West bid 4*H* North would= have doubled, and since 3*H* went down four at the table, 4*H* doubled would have gone down five (minus 1100). West stated that he was playing Flannery for= the first time and had simply forgotten his agreement. Once his partner Alerted, he realized his obligation was to bid as though he still believed 2*D* to be natural (his usual methods). Since he treated competitive bids after a weak 2*D* opening, such as East=92s 3*H* in the current auction, as non-forcing i= n all of his other partnerships (although new suits would be forcing after a major-suit weak-two bid), and since he believed his hand had decreased in value due to North=92s spade overcall and was not as good as it might have been= for a heart contract, he passed. West also stated that he agreed with N/S that,= had he bid, 4*H* would have been his clear preference over 3NT. The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that Flannery was the E/W agreement for an opening 2*D* bid and that West had simply forgotten. They also believed that, without discussion, West could reasonably have viewed 3*H* as forcing (in spite of his agreements with his other regular partners), and he was therefore obliged to treat it as such. Holding the *D*A, *H*Qx, and a potential ruffing value in clubs the Committee members believed that West=92= s hand was well above expectation in support of hearts, making a raise to 4*H* clearly superior to 3NT. While a subsequent double of 4*H* by North was not viewed as ironclad, it was considered to be an overwhelmingly likely= majority action. Based on this analysis, and after consulting with one of the= National Appeals Committee=92s Co-Chairs (Jon Brissman), it was decided that 4*H*= doubled by East would have been the likely final contract. Based on the result at= the table, the contract was changed for both pairs to 4*H* doubled down five,= plus 1100 for N/S. Committee=92s Supplementary Comment (Rich Colker): The Committee members= agreed unanimously that 4*H* doubled would have been the likely result had there= been no infraction, and the laws required that the score be adjusted accordingly for both sides. At the same time, however, we wished that the laws afforded us= the option of assigning some other score (one intermediate between the table result, plus 200, and the likely result, plus 1100) to the non-offenders, since plus 1100 seemed disproportionate to N/S=92s perceived equity on the board.= The Committee sought counsel regarding its options in this matter, but was= advised that the Board of Directors and the Laws Commission have both made it clear that the new Law 12C3 (allowing a Committee to use =93equity=94 to guide= their assignment of an adjusted score) shall not apply in the ACBL. Since, in the Committee=92s opinion, only 4*H* doubled met (and, in fact, exceeded) the standard for being considered a =93likely=94 result (no other result came= even close), we believed that we could not, in good conscience, avoid assigning this result to N/S. (Had we been willing to falsely claim that we could not determine a =93likely=94 bridge result on the board, we could have assigned= N/S an artificial adjusted score of, say, Average Plus). It seems wrong that Committees should be faced with the choice of either assigning scores which they believe to be inequitable or distorting their judgment of the bridge results. This is similar to a jury, in our criminal justice system, having to decide on a verdict for a defendant they believe= to be guilty when they know that the law mandates an exceedingly harsh penalty for a guilty verdict and denies the judge the right to use discretion in sentencing. (So-called =93Three Strikes and You=92re Out=94 laws are an= example of this.) The Committee therefore wishes to petition the Board of Directors and the Laws Commission to reconsider allowing ACBL Appeals Committees the right to use Law 12C3 to =93vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity.=94= This would create greater latitude for Committees to exercise their judgment in assigning adjusted scores (particularly, for the non-offenders), resulting= in avoiding the type of unnecessary dilemma faced by this Committee. Chairperson: Rich Colker Committee Members: Nell Cahn, Corinne Kirkham, Ellen Siebert, Judy Randel Directors=92 Ruling: 63.0 Committee=92s Decision: 79.6 This was a tremendously difficult case, and we agonized over our decision well into the wee hours of the morning. Had it not been for the chance of our decision affecting the BOD=92s policy disallowing the use of 12C3 in the ACBL, we might have opted for the intellectually dishonest (but more =93practical=94) solution of assigning N/S a score such as plus 250 (the likely result in= 4*H* undoubled, down five). The result we assigned is clearly the one prescribed= by our laws =97 as unfortunate as that may be in this case. The supplementary comment came under fire from one of the panelists (actually, I expected more). But first, a word from our sponsor (consultant) and supporters. Brissman: =93Judicial activism has no place on appeals Committees, so it was entirely appropriate for the Committee to decide as it did and then communicate their distress in a supplemental comment. Our role as Committee members is= to enforce the laws, rules and regulations promulgated by the Laws Commission= and the sponsoring organization. I favor =91bright line=92 standards that= restrict the latitude allowed Directors and Committees, because such guidelines lead to more consistent, reproducible rulings. If the bridge legislators see fit to= expand the latitude, I hope they do so narrowly and within welldefined parameters.= =94 Rigal: =93The Directors might well have assigned some Average Plus/Average= Minus result here in view of the follow up. It does look hard to work out what= might have happened here. The Committee worked very hard here. I can accept their view that 3*H* creates a force, although it is arguable that this hand would not move facing an invitational 3*H* with a wasted *S*K. That being the case, I think the decision they came to is the only one permitted, and I agree that= it seems wrong for them to have no options here.=94 Rosenberg: =93Sorry, Rich, I don=92t see the problem with plus 1100 for N/S.= Why are they denied the right to the score they might well have achieved against= a West who properly raised what should have been a forcing 3*H* bid? For many years, it=92s been =91unlucky=92 to have unethical opponents. Let=92s= reverse that trend.=94 Treadwell: =93The Committee had no choice but to decide as they did, but I a= m not sure I agree with the supplementary comment by the Chairman to petition the Board of Directors and Laws Commission to grant Committees the right to use judgement in the assigning of adjusted scores. The revoke penalty, for example, sometimes inflicts an unduly harsh penalty on the offenders. Should a Committee be allowed to assess a lesser penalty in these cases?=94 The Committee wasn=92t asking for any right not already in the laws. Law 12C3 is on the books. We are simply asking for the same right the rest of the world has to use it in those cases where it is appropriate. After all, it is only through an =93exceptional=94 action of our BOD that we have been denied that option.= This is totally unlike the revoke situation that Dave cites (inappropriately) as= an analogy. It would be inappropriate (and illegal =97 Law 12B) to ask to be allowed to modify a penalty prescribed by law just because we though it was unduly harsh or lenient. Weinstein: =93The Director correctly disallowed the pass of 3*H*, and then imputed the call of 3NT, which would be my choice with the West cards. However, it does seem reasonably likely that East would correct to 4*H* with only *D*Qx, putting E/W in number country again. Though the decision leaves a bit of a= bad taste, I agree with the Committee and especially with our editor=92s supplementary comment. However, I would add a caveat in the petitioning of= the Board of Directors and Laws Commission, that Law 12C3 should be amended to provide the Directors with the same latitude that it now provides only to Committees. Directors and Committees should not be operating under a= differing set of Laws as is now the case for those national/zonal organizations that have adopted 12C3.=20 =93The other issue is whether Law 12C3 should only be generally applied to= the non-offenders as is my view and seemingly our editor=92s view. It is my impression that it is being applied to both sides where it is in use.= However, I do believe that Law 12C3 should be applied to the offending side in cases other than unauthorized information, where equity is a stronger concern.=94 The next revision of the laws will occur in about ten years, so amendments= to the laws at this point in time are pretty moot. On the issue of whether Directors should have the same right under Law 12C3 as Committees, there is little justification for enabling Law 12C3 as it is presently written. In essence, it gives the power to make =93correct=94 score adjustments (those requiring 12C3) only to Committees (not Directors). Why should players have= to appeal a ruling simply to obtain justice? Directors must have the power to make correct rulings. The issue of whether 12C3 should be applied to the= offending as well as the non-offending side is a more difficult question. Suffice it= to say that it is my belief that equity is (almost?) never a concern with= respect to the offenders; they should receive the most unfavorable result that was= at all probable. But I=92m willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.= Perhaps, if Howard will write up his ideas on this matter more detail, we can discuss them in the Closing Comments section of an upcoming casebook. Wolff: =93Please everyone read Colker=92s opinion. As far as I=92m concerned= to award N/S plus 1100 in an IMP Pairs event is shameful. What about those poor innocent people at all those tables sitting the same direction? We can=92t keep our= heads in the sand. Let=92s do what Colker asked: Allow Committees to use Law 12C3 to do equity.=94 Perhaps the most eloquent statement about this case came from. . . Bramley: =93Meet N/S, the latest lucky winners in Committee Lotto! Let=92s= see how to use the tools of justice to get that really big score. We=92ll start by letting the opponents play in an awful contract that goes down four. But that=92s not good enough for us, so we=92ll get the Director to change it to a= different contract that goes down five. But that=92s not nearly enough, so we=92ll get= a Committee to give us plus 1100. Ah, that=92s more like it. Can we play= again? =93I am sorry that the Committee=92s bridge judgement was that 4*H* doubled was by far the most likely contract. They were then =91forced=92 to decide as they did. My own bridge judgment is that the table contract (3*H*) and the Director=92s assigned contract (3NT) would each occur a significant portion of the time,= as well as an occasional contract of 4*H* undoubled. The parlay needed to reach 4*H* doubled is too rich for me. Perhaps West was too honest when he= admitted that he liked 4*H* better than 3NT. My informal poll found more 3NT bidders than 4*H* bidders, and many of my panelists chose to pass when they could legally do so. (I presented the auction with no unauthorized information.) I would thus have satisfied both my conscience and the law by assigning N/S= the result for 3NT down five, plus 250. I am unable to find a legal way to avoid assigning E/W minus 1100 in 4*H* doubled down five, the worst result that was =91at all probable,=92 but I am= very bothered that the only way for them to get this result is for N/S, who= already have gotten two good results (table and Director), to come whining for a third. This seems blatantly unfair in my opinion. West upheld his end of the= bargain when he passed rather than bid 3NT, a bid that seems more suggested by the unauthorized information than the one he chose. He did volunteer for a contract that was very likely to be, and indeed was, awful. If a player does not immediately volunteer for the maximum level of punishment in such a= situation, are his opponents obligated to extract it from him by any means they can?=94 Cohen: =93I somewhat agree in principle with the decision, including the dissenting opinion. I think it's likely that West would raise to 4*H*, but= to outright assume 4*H* doubled down five seems too onesided. It's too hard to predict that 1100 would be the likely outcome. I'd rather have seen some= sort of ruling between 250 and 1100. [That was exactly our point. =97 Ed.] West= might have bid 3NT (*S*Kxx) and there is even a better reason to avoid ruling= 1100: One very important bridge point seems to have been overlooked. Forget the actual problem for a moment, and presume you have picked up: *S*AQJ32 *H*4 *D*Q862 *C*AK7. You overcalled the =91Flannery=92 opening by bidding 2*S*. L= HO bids 3*H* and RHO raises to 4*H*. And you? You'd double, of course. And what does double mean? Typically, a good hand with short hearts. And what would South= do with his actual hand (*S*106 *H*J63 *D*KJ1073 *C*J86)? He might pass, might bid 4*S*, and might even bid 5*D* (which would probably make opposite my example hand). So, my point is that we can't assume that North can double 4*H* for penalties on the actual hand (*H*A1087) and expect his partner to know that this shows a penalty double. That's a mighty convenient way everyone seems= to be looking at the =91expected result.=92 Since I think that it's difficult= for North to double 4*H* and have South correctly interpret it, that is a= further reason why I don't believe we can presume 1100.=94 I love Larry=92s analysis of the double of 4*H*. None of us on the= Committee thought of this, and it would clearly have been relevant for an expert N/S pair. But to play devil=92s advocate for a moment, give Larry=92s North hand= to a =93good=94 player (say, 1000-2000 masterpoints) and ask him what he would do= over 4*H*. My gut tells me that doubling would never enter his mind, for fear= that his partner would pass, thinking it to be penalty. If only a Committee= member had come up with Larry=92s argument, I would have used every wile at my= disposal to employ it to avoid the decision we made. Nice going, Larry. Take an extra cookie. And now for the Grinch I promised. This Grinch was polite enough to warn me about what was to come (=93Note to Rich Colker: get over it. You knew you= were going to get an argument from me on this, so here it is.=94) Counselor, the floor, but not the last word, is yours. Gerard: =93The primary purpose of any system of laws is to create order out= of chaos. The alternative to a society of laws is anarchy. Freedom is a= wonderful thing, but sometimes it has to give way to stability. If laws are to be enforced only when it feels right to do so or when traditional notions of equity are not offended, the elements of certainty and consistency become nonexistent. The concept of preemption is based on the same principle, that there are some areas in which lawgivers must speak with one voice, not many. =93As applied to the Appeals process, there is a good reason why the equity that you argue for is inappropriate. One Committee=92s concept of equity is= another=92s sense of injustice. You, for example, appear to be troubled by assigning= 1100 as the deemed table result, even though you admit that it clearly follows= from an application of the law. I wouldn=92t lose a second=92s sleep, not because= I think that plus 1100 is what N/S necessarily deserve but because I agree= with the public policy behind that section of the Laws that requires a Committee= to reach that result. That purpose is to avoid trying to guess what would have happened and to give the non-offending side the best of what had any reasonable likelihood of happening while treating the offenders much more harshly. This eliminates mind reading and establishes an objective standard for score adjustment rather than a variable one. And even if I didn=92t agree with the policy reasons, I do not have the right to substitute my own standard of justice for that of the National Laws Commission. It=92s their job to= promulgate the Laws, mine to apply them. =93Your jury analysis is just a different version of what in my opinion the Simpson jury did. It encourages jury nullification and sociological verdicts rather than those based on the evidence. Your quarrel with Three Strikes and Out laws is with the legislature; your quarrel with the nonapplicability of Law 12C3 is properly directed but flawed. Once you admit that plus 1100 is not only =91a=92 likely result but =91the=92 likely result, what is wrong with a= system in which N/S=92s score is adjusted to plus 1100 no matter which Committee is= assembled (assuming the Committee correctly reaches the same conclusion yours did)?= You would have one Committee assign plus 200, another plus 550, another plus= 650, another plus 1100 and who knows how many other possibilities. What kind of= way is that to run a railroad? Why bother with laws, regulations, or conditions= of contest? =93I=92ve heard the Protect The Field argument for doing what you want to= do, and it=92s a bunch of rubbish. The field is never protected against an= off-the-chart result, no matter how it=92s achieved. If I score plus 800 as N/S on this= hand I wouldn=92t feel done in by the Appeals process if I scored 11 matchpoints, instead of 12, nor would I begrudge this N/S the 12 matchpoints that they= were denied the opportunity to earn at the table. At IMP Pairs my 12 IMPs for= plus 800 is less likely to be affected, and I can=92t worry about N/S=92s 14 IMPs= for plus 1100. =93The whole effort to upgrade the Appeals process, now more than six years old, got started in part because of the seemingly random and inconsistent way in which Committees were perceived to be applying the Laws. Law 12C3 would send us back in time and would cancel a lot of the progress that has been made.=94 If the process by which Committees assign adjusted scores were =93objective,=94 as Ron claims, then I would have no problem accepting his position. Unfortunately, his very point that =93One Committee=92s concept of equity is another=92s= sense of injustice.=94 belies his own argument. It was subjective to claim that 4*H* doubled would have been the most likely result for N/S, it was subjective to decide that East=92s 3*H* bid should have been considered forcing, it was subjective to decide that 4*H* would have gone down five tricks =97 many= things that Committees decide end up being subjective in one way or another. To ask to be allowed (as the rest of the world is) in certain cases to assign the non-offenders what the Committee believes their long-term equity is in the hand, rather than a specific result which may not have an especially high probability of occurring (even though it is the most likely of the possible results), does not strike me as being unreasonable. The policy reflected by Law 12C2 is one which is clearly debatable. The current view is that the offenders should have any possibility of profiting from their infraction removed, while the non-offenders should be protected= to the most favorable result that was likely. But what if several results are likely on a hand (all approximately equally so), but one has a slightly= higher (subjective!) probability than the others. That result (which has the= contract going down) is worth 11 IMPs to the non-offenders, while each of the other (say) three (which have it making with various numbers of overtricks) are worth about 3 IMPs. The chances of the contract making are roughly 3-to-1 by the Committee=92s own (subjective) determination, yet the result which the= current laws say must be assigned to the non-offenders has it going down. The non-offenders figure to win about 5 IMPs on the average on the board every time it is played out without an infraction, but every time an opponent commits= the infraction the opponents gain 11 IMPs. Is that justice? I would agree that the most likely result should be assigned to the non-offenders much of the time, but I think it should not be in situations where (1) they end up with a windfall result which is (2) relatively low in probability compared to the set of other likely results. In addition, I see= no problem with allowing the Committee to apply their subjective judgment to= when this should be permitted =97 given that the rest of the process is also= quite subjective. I understand Edgar=92s argument that the non-offenders are entitled to the= most favorable result which stood even a small chance of occurring, in =93compensation=94 for those times when the infraction gets by unnoticed= (the offenders profit; the non-offenders get robbed) or when the Director or an Appeals Committee fails to properly redress the damage. This is a good argument, but it is also subjective. The issue here isn=92t =93Protecting The Field=94 (sorry Wolffie) =97 it=92= s avoiding assigning a skewed result to a pair merely because that result happens to be (subjectively) a bit more likely than the others. Why is the subjectivity in determining which result is most likely any more acceptable than the subjectivity in determining what is equity? I would rather see subjectivity reduced (it can never be eliminated) wherever possible, and making equity-based score adjustments has the best chance of achieving that. This is the same principle as the well-known statistical =93Law of Large Numbers,=94 which= says (roughly) that results based on more data (achieved here by taking all outcomes into account in assigning a score rather than just the most likely one) are less variable, and more faithful to the underlying population. Thus, equity-based decisions should actually reduce variability by removing the extremes =97 not by forcing complete homogeneity. We=92ve seen the effects of 12C2 in the rise in =93cry baby=94 appeals in= recent years (see Bart=92s comment above). The implementation of 12C3 would at= least make the benefits for bringing a case less attractive for those out to get= as much as they can in Committee. If each pair figures only to get their reasonable equity in a case rather than some highly profitable windfall, then I think we=92d see many more principled cases, even in the short-run. Maybe Ron hasn=92t been reading the same appeal decisions that I have over= the past six years (try the San Francisco casebook again), but the progress Ron cites is nowhere apparent to me. I would like to see more consistency in our decisions (and panel), and I=92ve argued for a reworking of the process to try to achieve that (see =93A Call To Arms=94 in my closing comments from San= Francisco). I would be happy if extreme decisions across different Committees could be eliminated on any given case and a bunch of variable, but relatively homogeneous, ones substituted. 12C3 has to be applied with discrimination= and judgment, but in my opinion it is worth trying. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:17:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:45 +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 LAA16129 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:37 +1000 Received: from modem19.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zIjnJ-0000Bx-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:20:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:13:57 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' > If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H hasrelated to > a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That ismost > people's understanding of the English language IMO. > +++ Well, I do have difficulties with some of Edgar's choice of language, but his style was in general to exclude what he did not say, so that a call which related to a specified suit and an unspecified suit was not a call that 'related to a specified suit or suits'.+++ > It appears from the above reply that this problem was known with the > 1987 Laws: why was the 1997 Laws not changed to clarify? ++++ There appeared to be no difficulty once Edgar and I had sorted it in 1986/7, and used the information in the EBU Seminar and published it with EBL approval in the official EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws. Perhaps I should have foreseen that after ten years Max's question could be asked again by someone not privy to the past resolution of the question. And maybe in the US, too, it appears. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > .. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:17:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:46 +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 LAA16130 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:38 +1000 Received: from modem19.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zIjnK-0000Bx-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:20:39 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: Two questions Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:24:35 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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: Michael Farebrother > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Two questions > Date: 14 September 1998 19:54 > >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during > >auction or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation >or > technique. > > > Does that include the FLB? Because that includes a scoring table... ++++ If the Lawbook can help him to remember something, or to calculate something, or to adjust his technique, then he cannot look at it. A pity, really, since I would like to refresh the memories of some players as to the courtesies. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:17:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:47 +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 LAA16132 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:39 +1000 Received: from modem19.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zIjnM-0000Bx-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:20:40 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:12:18 +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: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 14 September 1998 15:12 > > > From: "Grattan" > > Seventh Extract from Minutes of WBFLC in Lille > > > > " Actions authorised in the laws > > The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an > > action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, > > other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. > Steve Willner said > I think this may be directed at something I started. ++++ Not directed personally but at the arguments which a number of people have presented. The most common one is that it is legitimate to look at opponents' CC at times when it is not the player's turn to call or play. That extraneous action could well be instrumental in providing info. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:17:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:55 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16144 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:17:42 +1000 Received: from modem19.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zIjnO-0000Bx-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:20:43 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Was Appeals at Lille : now 12C3 for the Americas.....!? Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:13:47 +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 "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: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > At 01:38 AM 9/14/98 +0100, David wrote: > > > Where is all this leading, do I hear you ask > > What our European friends may not appreciate is the sheer size and extent > of the ACBL. On any given weekend, there are dozens of ACBL-sanctioned > bridge tournaments going on throughout North America. > > > 99.9% of AC decisions made at ACBL tournaments are not made at NABCs. > 99.9% of ACBL members' experiences with NABCs did not take place at NABCs. > The typical ACBL member out there, who has no reason to trust ACs, has > never even been to an NABC. The egregious ACBL AC decisions that make it > to BLML or r.g.b are overwhelmingly drawn from NABCs and other major > tournaments, and pale in comparison to what goes on at the smaller local > tournaments, where they consider themselves very lucky to have even a > single individual available to sit on an AC who might remotely be > considered qualified to do so at the NABC level. > > In this context, it seems to me, the differences between ACBLers and > Europeans regarding L12C3, and the granting of decision-making power to ACs > in general, are much more understandable. ++++ This is fascinating. We are fed these wild stories of the ACBL membership being down to about the size of that of the Netherlands - something just short of 200,000 .... obviously misleading .....and here we have a picture of an ACBL bridge market that may even be comparable with that of Europe, from Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. Why then is the experience of decisions by ACs so very different ? Do we have an explanation ? I have just one thought to offer. Is it possible that Zone 1 is fortunate in being subdivided into 40 or so nations, each one of which can set up its own structure to develop and guide TDs and ACs ? If there is anything in this, should the ACBL perhaps try delegating the organisation of such procedures to its sub-divisions ? Well, who knows? - and it is not really any of my business. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:41:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:41:14 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16212 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:41:08 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIkA4-0001od-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:26:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >> At 03:46 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: >> > >> >> 1. Is a player entitled to refer to a scoring table during the auction? >> >> This came up a few years ago when an opponents was trying to decide whether >> >> to double us or bid his slam. >> > >> >This is easy: footnote of Law 40: A player is not entitled, during auction >> >or play, to any aids to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. >> Many years ago, when I was young and foolish (ok ok), I recall starting to count 2, 5, 8 on my hands, removed a shoe and continued 11, 14, started to remove my second shoe and my opponent said "I hope to god this isn't going for 23". I thought that was one of the funniest one- liners I've ever heard at the table. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 11:57:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:57:37 +1000 Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.190]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16268 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:57:28 +1000 Received: from default (d10.dial-1.blk.ma.ultra.net [146.115.113.10]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id WAA09260 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35FDCA20.6D3A@ma.ultranet.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:00:00 -0400 From: richard willey Reply-To: rew@ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Convention definition References: <199809141423.KAA05026@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Eric Landau > > What's needed is wording that clearly contradicts those who would argue > > that a normal 1S opening bid carries the specific message that opener does > > not have 7+ hearts, diamonds or clubs, and is therefore a convention (a > > rather extreme example, but subtler ones abound). > > > I have suggested adding, after "overall strength," "or the order in > which suits will be bid." Does this suffice? Of course it makes > canape bids not a convention (as long as they promise three cards in > the suit named), but I rather like that result. I predict not everyone > will. I must admit that I've always agreed with most of Steve's positions in the great debate on the definition of conventions. However, I'm not willing to go quite so far as to say that any non-canape opening bid is by definition conventional. Consider the point that Eric is raising. Playing a non-canape system, a one spade opening clearly denies 7+ cards in a side suit. This is not a result of the definition of the one spade opening, but rather a negative inference that is available from the failure to make another, more descriptive opening bid. To me this clearly seems different than a mini-multi 2D opening that PROMISES 6+ cards in one of the majors or alternatively a disciplined weak two heart opening that explicitly DENIES a void in a side suit. For those who argue that only non-canape openings are non-conventional, I would like to pose the following questions. Consider the following two cases. Even in a canape opening system, certain negative inferences are clearly available. For example, most player's using a canape opening style have an agreement whether they will open one heart or one spade with 4-4 in the majors. Would this type of agreement be enough so that the otherwise natural opening bid be treated as conventional? Assume for the moment that it does. Some players who use a canape opening style agree that with four-four in the majors, they will open the better of the two suits. In this case, while the 1M opening bid does not give explicit information about shape, it still conveys information about another suit. Would this type of agreement be enough so that the otherwise natural opening bid becomes conventional? To me, it would appear that their are only two choices. If we assume that negative inferences available from the failure to open a more descriptive opening bid are sufficient to make a bid convention, I fail to see where the line should be drawn. At the same time, I can not believe that our only choice to avoid having a conventional one major opening is to flip a coin with 4432 shape. Richard Willey From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 13:38:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:38:16 +1000 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16455 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:38:10 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA24906 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:41:11 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA17500 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:39:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199809150339.XAA17500@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:39:39, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Non-Conventional side note MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- In response to this note, I feel a responsibility to explain. I spent a lot of time sorting this situation out. The reason why Mr. Pewick was given instructions to alert his 1 level opening bids was because he uses no strong bids in his system. The two bids are not strong and nor are 1C or 2C bids artificial and strong. The directors felt that people could not make the normal inferences from a 1H bid that others might from more familiar systems. When opponents ask Mr. Pewick the meaning of an alert, he should simply say that the bid has unlimited strength and by partnership agreement, partner is still allowed to pass this opening bid. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator -------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- Date: Monday, 14-Sep-98 12:31 PM From: Axeman \ Internet: (axeman@freewwweb.com) To: Laws \ Internet: (bridge-laws@octavia.anu. edu.au) Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Actually, I have an intense interest in this item of discussion. Earlier this year it came to my attention and I posted to the group that the ACBL interprets an opening suit bid which is natural, says nothing about any suit other than the suit named, says nothing about the number of honors held other than they are at least adequate [which includes unlimited] to open the bidding at the one level and the bid is non forcing- is a convention that must be alerted. Further, when asked to explain the alert [and this happens with great frequency] a thorough rendition of the complete opening system agreements must be given. I concur that you are quite right in assessing the committee's desire to not address such a topic, but if it should, I would be interested in what result it brings. Personally, I have some feedback as to the effect of the ACBL's policy: To report the practical aspects of complying with the policy I have found the following- a. the opponents find it irritating [responses range in level from 'why are you wasting my time' to intense abuse] b. it typically adds about 1 to 2 minutes to an auction c. it takes so much brain power to give the explanation that it makes it impossible to play well and the explanation rarely is made correctly because of its length and details Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > ---------- > > From: Jan Kamras > > To: Grattan ; blml > > > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > > Date: 13 September 1998 21:20 > > > > Grattan > > > > I know you don't want to revisit this, > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +++ I do not want to go through this again. Suffice to say > that > > > in my view the English is clear: > > > > I agree this is a sensible/logical interpretation. > >. In your 2S example, they consider > > it a "convention" even if it shows *only* S, arguing along the > lines > > that it then *also* has the meaning of lacking another long > suit! > > They also argue that a normal, non-canape, 1H opening is a > convention > > since it has the *additional* meaning that you have no longer > suit than > > H! > > ++==++ This particular point is the one on which the WBFLC > pronounced in Lille. I have circulated the decision as my fifth > extract on BLML ++==++ > > > > Finally, some consider the sentence about "a bid that shows a > certain > > hcp-count is not a convention..." to mean that unlimited bids > *are* conventions. > > ++==++ I have missed seeing any such suggestion so I did not > include it in my papers for Lille. So the Committee has not > looked at it this time.However, they were a little impatient even > with what I took to them, apparently not believing anybody > could be serious about it. And I would bank on it they would > be even more dismissive of this one; there is a danger internet > debate will be disregarded if it spends its time chasing > butterflies. To answer your question, WBFLC has never > considered the point and this is surely because it has not > thought it worth the time that might be spent on it. > ~~ Grattan ~~ > ++==++ > -------- REPLY, End of original message -------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 14:22:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:22:27 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16531 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:22:21 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjud.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.205]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA20660 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915002111.006e66a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:21:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <199809150117.VAA27527@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:57 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Linda wrote: Wow! Thanks for a real education on the issues surrounding this debate. Although the weight of opinion you cited strongly supports the adoption of L12C3, I found Ron Gerard's dissenting opinion to be the most cogent. Your chief argument with Ron's position appears to be that since all judgements in committee are at least somewhat subjective, it is unrealistic and in the end, unjust to bind the AC too tightly to objective standards of equity. You are right, of course, that there is a significant component of subjectivity in the types of bridge judgements we are asked to make in the adjudication process. Bart Bramley makes a reasoned argument that the committee's finding that 4H* was a likely result (or indeed, the most likely result) was in error. Perhaps he is right. But in fact, it seems like a defensible bridge judgement, and one that most of those involved seemed to accept as fairly obvious. I would wager that most competent AC's would find similarly. The real point is that even though the judgement has a subjective aspect, it can reasonably be debated; we at least understand and agree on what we're arguing about. But it is cynical and ultimately self-defeating to argue that because all judgement has a subjective component, we should not be bound by laws which seek to confine judgements within a framework of objective standards. It is the proper function of the Laws to guide TD's and AC's in how to "do equity", by providing objective criteria against which decisions can be measured. A "Law" like 12C3 does the opposite. In effect, the lawmakers have ceded resposibility for this chore to the AC. Ron's comment that "one committee's equity is another's injustice" describes the L12C3 world, where the concept of equity is pretty much a blue-plate special-- whatever a particular AC feels is equitable on a given day. You don't seem bothered by that, since according to the Law of Large Numbers, the decisions will average out to some rough equity. But I can tell you that as a player, I will quickly lose all faith in an adjudication system in which the outcome is decided by whim rather than by reason. Are there problems with the current appeals system? You bet. My own opinion is that these are overwhelmingly the result of poor education of both players and AC members. But no category of bad decisions makes me more irate than those in which the AC displays a cavalier disregard of the Laws (Lille#23 is State's Exhibit A). Some TD's and some AC's (and at least one unnamed SO) believe that they know what's in the best interest of the game, and to hell with the Laws. To explicitly empower an AC to "do equity" without any objective standard of what that does or should mean is to invite more of this type of abuse, not less. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 14:22:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:22:26 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16530 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:22:19 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjud.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.205]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA16869 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915002346.0071bae4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:23:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <1c$gwtCx0a$1Ewy5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980914130422.00720500@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 9/15/98 +0100, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>See Lille#35 for why C3 is unworkable. For once, the ACBL deserves credit >>for a well-reasoned decision in the application of the Laws. > > I have read Lille #35. I do not see how this makes L12C3 unworkable. > Herman's defense of the decision in that case (at least in this forum) pretty much begins and ends with the statement that the committee felt that its score adjustment was equitable. In the context of L12C3, this is completely unexceptionable. Herman, after all, was there, and it's hard to imagine the committee issuing this decision if they thought it was _inequitable_. Their feelings about equity are, moreover, simply beyond challenge, because the practical effect of L12C3 is to strip the concept of equity of any legal encumbrances, leaving it pretty much to the AC to work out de novo. Until now, the definition of how to restore equity was the province of the Laws. It's as if the lawmakers have announced, "We're tired. You guys work it out." Please understand: I do not claim that the AC was wrong. Indeed they cannot be. But I doubt very much if one in 12 competent AC's would arrive at the same score adjustment, and under L12C3, all would be equally correct. This sort of capriciousness in the application of the Laws cannot be expected to engender greater respect for the legal process. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 17:53:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA16893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:53:55 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA16888 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:53:44 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA16351 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:56:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199809150756.JAA16351@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:56:47 +0000 Subject: Revoke and claim Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some discussion arose over the following situation: s K4 h - d - c 863 s ?? s ??? h ? h ?? d - d - c 97 c - s AJ85 h - d - c K One of the question marks is the spade queen. South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. How many tricks do you give South? Does it matter whether it is pairs or IMP's? JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 20:15:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:15:23 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17240 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:11:55 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip [193.125.70.58]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id NAA24657 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:58:54 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199809150958.NAA24657@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:06:08 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > s K4 > h - > d - > c 863 > s ?? s ??? > h ? h ?? > d - d - > c 97 c - > s AJ85 > h - > d - > c K > > One of the question marks is the spade queen. > South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. > How many tricks do you give South? Revoke is not established and can be corrected. Small heart is MAJOR Penalty Card. Now South's claim may be withdrawn because it was based on MI. The number of tricks depends on small spades in West hand. South can throw-in East by spades(if possible) by s8 and forbid heart lead. In this case 10 tricks to declarer, otherwise just made. > Does it matter whether it is pairs or IMP's? Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 20:22:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:22:20 +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 UAA17288 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:22:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-140.uunet.be [194.7.13.140]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07567 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:25:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FD5C21.4B9A5290@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:10:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809121832.LAA09985@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980913231512.007195c0@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980914092611.0071c3d8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > Precisely the problem. L12C3 invites AC's to assign scores based on their > "feelings" about what is equitable, without constraint by any legal > standard or even any hard facts. If AC members feel some vague antipathy > for one side or the other, or have been cowed by the impressive credentials > of some world-class appellant, then they can couch their muddled decision > in touchy-feely language about their feelings for equity. Exactly how will > this departure from objective standards increase respect for the just > application of the Laws? > But the AC will use their "feelings" with or without L12C3. Without L12C3, the AC will make a L12C2 ruling in favour of one side or the other. The "vague antipathy for one side or the other", or the fact of having "been cowed by the impressive credentials of some world-class appellant" will still exist, and the result of it will be that one side will get far more than they deserve, and the other far less. Why can't you see that a varied score is better than a black or white one ? I liked the analogy of "the penalty for arson is exactly 100 days in prison", but a better analogy is : "the penalty is exactly 25 years". Without L12C3, the judge will have to rule 25 years or letting the poor pyromaniac go free; with L12C3, the judge can sentence the fellow to 6 months community service (as a fireman). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 20:54:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:54:43 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17341 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:53:36 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA23999 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:56:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199809151056.MAA23999@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:56:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal References: <199809150756.JAA16351@hera.frw.uva.nl>; from "Jan Peter Pals" at Sep 15, 98 9:56 am In-reply-to: <0EZB00CD7MJCYD@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > > > s K4 > > h - > > d - > > c 863 > > s ?? s ??? > > h ? h ?? > > d - d - > > c 97 c - > > s AJ85 > > h - > > d - > > c K > > > > One of the question marks is the spade queen. > > South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > > the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > > this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > > 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > > Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. > > How many tricks do you give South? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Evert wrote: > Because South claimed, play ceases. But the revoke is not established. > I don't know what ?? is. But it depends on ?? how much tricks NS will get. > Because the revoke is not established it must be corrected and then ?? Yes, what then?? Sorry for not being clear. The number of question marks represents the number of cards. Thus, West has two spades and one heart, East three spades and two hearts. Of course, the position of the spade queen is crucial. JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 21:00:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:00:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17397 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:00:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIssn-0000Hx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:15:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980915002346.0071bae4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:56 AM 9/15/98 +0100, David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>See Lille#35 for why C3 is unworkable. For once, the ACBL deserves credit >>>for a well-reasoned decision in the application of the Laws. >> >> I have read Lille #35. I do not see how this makes L12C3 unworkable. >> >Herman's defense of the decision in that case (at least in this forum) >pretty much begins and ends with the statement that the committee felt that >its score adjustment was equitable. In the context of L12C3, this is >completely unexceptionable. Herman, after all, was there, and it's hard to >imagine the committee issuing this decision if they thought it was >_inequitable_. Their feelings about equity are, moreover, simply beyond >challenge, because the practical effect of L12C3 is to strip the concept of >equity of any legal encumbrances, leaving it pretty much to the AC to work >out de novo. Until now, the definition of how to restore equity was the >province of the Laws. It's as if the lawmakers have announced, "We're >tired. You guys work it out." > >Please understand: I do not claim that the AC was wrong. Indeed they cannot >be. But I doubt very much if one in 12 competent AC's would arrive at the >same score adjustment, and under L12C3, all would be equally correct. This >sort of capriciousness in the application of the Laws cannot be expected to >engender greater respect for the legal process. Your argument sounds reasonable but in fact is not correct. An overall impression of the effects of the judicial process is not the same as someone compiling fairly useless statistics to prove it is not completely equitable. Thus if L12C3 leads to what feels overall to be a better set of results then I believe it to be better and the fact that one particular decision looks poor is not relevant. To apply L12C3 correctly and fairly the ACs should be able to call on interpretations, experience and regulations. Admittedly at World level they rely heavily on experience and commonsense. This is easier for those who already serve on Committees for jurisdictions that use L12C3. Consider this case that I read in a newspaper many years ago in England. A youth had been found guilty of some crime. The judge remarked that it was serious enough that he felt that a six month sentence was not enough. In his opinion nine months, a year, or even fifteen months seemed to suit severity of the crime. However, the law gave him two choices: either six months or two years, nothing in- between. The judge said that that was a bad law, and I agree with him. Our Laws are similar. When you have a case where a person has chosen amongst LAs without L12C3 you adjust either fiercely or not-at-all. In the Reno case-book there is a case where a slow 3S doubled is pulled to 4H. I am sure that over 90% of you would pull it to 4H. Under ACBL rules we have to rule that back to 3S doubled making, a dreadfully harsh decision. Other jurisdictions would give an in-between score, say 25% of 3S*=, 75% of 4H=, and people would find it much fairer. They would still find it fairer even if one Committee gave 40% of 3S*=, 60% of 4H= and another 10% of 3S*=, 90% of 4H=: that is still fairer than forcing the ruling to be 100% of 3S*=, 0% of 4H= to avoid differences. Of course, it does not avoid differences anyway, it just makes them more extreme. There were two of these 90%-type rulings at Reno: one was adjusted, the other not. Going back to the judge: given freedom of choice he might have given 12 months, and another one 18 months, and another only 9. This does not invalidate the fact that to allow this freedom would be better than tying him down to 6 or 24. For that matter, even if you don't agree with a decision [and I don't in the one you are quoting] L12C3 leads to a softer process, eliminating some of the really harsh decisions. It is acceptable generally if used with commonsense. When I originally espoused L12C3 in the ACBL I assumed that Districts and Units ran competent Appeals processes. If this is not the case then I would suggest that the ACBL [a] enables L12C3 for NABCs only [b] lays down instructions for its use [c] educates Districts and Units in proper appeals processes [d] refuses to license Regionals and Sectionals unless they conform to sensible Appeals policies [e] considers enabling L12C3 at a wider level only when the Appeals process becomes adequate -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 21:18:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:18:17 +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 VAA17442 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:18:12 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.54]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980915112043.FTJF2794@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:20:44 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Fw: Revoke and claim Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:18:43 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde09a$994ba9a0$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 >Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > s K4 > h - > d - > c 863 >s ?? s ??? >h ? h ?? >d - d - >c 97 c - > s AJ85 > h - > d - > c K > >One of the question marks is the spade queen. >South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, >the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At >this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: >'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. >Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. >How many tricks do you give South? >Does it matter whether it is pairs or IMP's? DID EAST ACQUIESCE TO THE CLAIM IN ANY WAY? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 21:44:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:44:14 +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 VAA17658 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:44:07 +1000 Received: from client08f0.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.240] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zItZW-0007Qc-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:47:02 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:37:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bddffd$fddd4a60$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 certainly a modern idea that authority is not trusted. Perhaps >it is the effect of the media, or changing times, or something else. >What seems to have been missed is that it is often unhelpful. It may be >fun to try and chase Clinton from office for the sort of sexual lying >that three-quarters of his critics have indulged in at some time, but it >is not good for the USA. However, people will do it. ++ Not only his critics but numbers of earlier Presidents, British Royalty, great artists, human beings all...... If they are good at their jobs who cares ? ++ > This leaves the question of Appeal 23 in Lille. The WBF is in a >strange anomalous position of finding it very difficult to control its >TDs and ACs and other tournament staff very well in its own >competitions. It is easy to criticise them but have you considered >*how* to control them? If you think that Appeal 23 shows how you can >misuse the Law then that is your opinion: but it is nothing to do with >L12C3. It is just that you have an Appeal where the application of Law >was not done in a way that popular opinion deems to be right. However, >that should not affect opinions of what can be done by a National >organisation which should be able to apply a sensible level of control. > ++ Good law remains good only in good hands. Blame the plumber, not his tools. But exonerate the TDs who are only carrying out the instructions given them ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 21:48:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:11 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17682 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:05 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-254.uunet.be [194.7.9.254]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14355 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:51:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FE46B6.EE6E3698@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:51:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 12C3 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980914130422.00720500@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980915002346.0071bae4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > Please understand: I do not claim that the AC was wrong. Indeed they cannot > be. My point exactly. > But I doubt very much if one in 12 competent AC's would arrive at the > same score adjustment, and under L12C3, all would be equally correct. We all know that different committees will come up with different judgments, whether or not they have L12C3 to work with. Giving them L12C3 just gives them some more options, so a larger number of different committees will be needed before two committees will actually arrive at the same outcome, but that is of no consequence. > This > sort of capriciousness in the application of the Laws cannot be expected to > engender greater respect for the legal process. > A different prosecutor would have written another 400 pages on Clinton, and the result may or may not be different. That does not change the respect for the US judicial system, which may or may not exist. What do you prefer : the US system where the judge (or jury) gets to select the penalty, or the Koran, where the hand is chopped off even before the fair trial ends ? How many people have already commented that California's three-strike law is basically wrong ? Giving a judiciary the power to vary rulings does not make for a bad judiciary ! > Mike Dennis _ > msd@mindspring.com o\ /o > Pikesville, MD o|_|o > USA |-| > o|-| > |-| > |_| > / \ > ( _ ) > \ _ / -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 21:48:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:32 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17696 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:48:25 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-254.uunet.be [194.7.9.254]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14362 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:51:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FE50CF.DDADE5BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:34:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke and claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809150756.JAA16351@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > s K4 > h - > d - > c 863 > s ?? s ??? > h ? h ?? > d - d - > c 97 c - > s AJ85 > h - > d - > c K > > One of the question marks is the spade queen. > South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. > How many tricks do you give South? I would start by asking how many clubs south thought were out. He cannot have known before that there were none (even in mistake) or he would have claimed before. Nor can he really have known there was a revoke, or he should have played a spade before claiming. I would like to know what South says to all that. If we agree that he is genuinly surprised at seeing both defenders show out, then I would give him all the tricks, being one club and four spades after a successful finesse. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I have been on holiday from 21/8 to 6/9, so if you are waiting for a reply, do have some patience. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 22:57:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:57:18 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA17887 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:57:04 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA00776; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:59:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199809151259.OAA00776@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:00:01 +0000 Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: rbeye@worldnet.att.net X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <01bde09a$994ba9a0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > > > s K4 > > h - > > d - > > c 863 > >s ?? s ??? > >h ? h ?? > >d - d - > >c 97 c - > > s AJ85 > > h - > > d - > > c K > > > >One of the question marks is the spade queen. > >South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > >the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > >this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > >'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > >Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. > >How many tricks do you give South? > >Does it matter whether it is pairs or IMP's? > > DID EAST ACQUIESCE TO THE CLAIM IN ANY WAY? No. For the second time I apologize for being unclear. JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 15 23:09:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:09:37 +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 XAA17945 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:09:31 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06579 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980915091138.007fa6f0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:11:38 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 AM 9/15/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ If the Lawbook can help him to remember something, or >to calculate something, or to adjust his technique, then he cannot >look at it. A pity, really, since I would like to refresh the memories >of some players as to the courtesies. ++++ What about something like a penalty card? It has been my experience that the director will tell declarer something along the lines of "should this player's partner gain the lead while the penalty card is still exposed you will have some options." Is the declarer entitled to know what these options are? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 00:16:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:16:24 +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 ESMTP id AAA20506 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:16:17 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zIvwr-000529-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:19:17 +0000 Message-ID: <4hnz$bARUn$1EwgS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:09:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980915091138.007fa6f0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 12:24 AM 9/15/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>++++ If the Lawbook can help him to remember something, or >>to calculate something, or to adjust his technique, then he cannot >>look at it. A pity, really, since I would like to refresh the memories >>of some players as to the courtesies. ++++ > >What about something like a penalty card? It has been my experience that >the director will tell declarer something along the lines of "should this >player's partner gain the lead while the penalty card is still exposed you >will have some options." Is the declarer entitled to know what these >options are? Certainly. L10C1 gives that right. But you do not hand the player a Law book: the TD explains the options, and remains at the table until they are carried out. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 00:25:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:25:07 +1000 Received: from ns1.tudelft.nl (ns1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20547 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:24:59 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0EZB00H9KXILHI@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:27:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA19904; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:26:27 +0200 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:26:26 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Revoke and claim In-reply-to: <199809150756.JAA16351@hera.frw.uva.nl>; from "Jan Peter Pals" at Sep 15, 98 9:56 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EZB00H9LXILHI@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Some discussion arose over the following situation: > > s K4 > h - > d - > c 863 > s ?? s ??? > h ? h ?? > d - d - > c 97 c - > s AJ85 > h - > d - > c K > > One of the question marks is the spade queen. > South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. > How many tricks do you give South? > Does it matter whether it is pairs or IMP's? > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The revoke is not established because NS claimed. So normally the revoke must be corrected and we get a penalty card. The result is dependent of the ??? . Evert. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 01:16:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:16:37 +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 BAA20726 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:14:04 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA14735 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:11:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809151511.KAA14735@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:11:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Consider this case that I read in a newspaper many years ago in > England. A youth had been found guilty of some crime. The judge > remarked that it was serious enough that he felt that a six month > sentence was not enough. In his opinion nine months, a year, or even > fifteen months seemed to suit severity of the crime. However, the law > gave him two choices: either six months or two years, nothing in- > between. The judge said that that was a bad law, and I agree with him. I do, too. > Our Laws are similar. When you have a case where a person has chosen > amongst LAs without L12C3 you adjust either fiercely or not-at-all. In > the Reno case-book there is a case where a slow 3S doubled is pulled to > 4H. I am sure that over 90% of you would pull it to 4H. Under ACBL > rules we have to rule that back to 3S doubled making, a dreadfully harsh > decision. Other jurisdictions would give an in-between score, say 25% > of 3S*=, 75% of 4H=, and people would find it much fairer. They would > still find it fairer even if one Committee gave 40% of 3S*=, 60% of 4H= > and another 10% of 3S*=, 90% of 4H=: that is still fairer than forcing > the ruling to be 100% of 3S*=, 0% of 4H= to avoid differences. Of > course, it does not avoid differences anyway, it just makes them more > extreme. There were two of these 90%-type rulings at Reno: one was > adjusted, the other not. > > Going back to the judge: given freedom of choice he might have given > 12 months, and another one 18 months, and another only 9. This does not > invalidate the fact that to allow this freedom would be better than > tying him down to 6 or 24. What I don't like about L12C3 is that it doesn't give us this sort of option. Most laws now give sentencing _limits_ [10-30 years] and then allow the judge to choose the equitable point within those limits. Of course, 10 judges may choose 10 different points, but at least they will be clustered in some neighborhood. The problem with L12C3 is that it replaces a law with _no_ discretion with one with _unlimited_ discretion. Tying the judge to 6 or 24 months is a bad thing. But it is also a bad thing to say "Choose 1 day or 500 years if that sounds good to you". The defenders of C3 all seem to assume that committees will faithfully choose results _less_ extreme than those allowed by C2, and results which are clearly based on the possible outcomes of the hand. I see no reason for such optimism [at least in the ACBL, which is all I can speak for]. In this context, the infamous Appeal 23 _is_ relevant. If the committee decides that it is time to give you an ethics lesson, then they can legally choose _any_ score they like. {Yes, I know that C3 was not part of that appeal.} If L12C3 were re-written so that it clearly indicates that committees are supposed to rule within some certain framework, or if the law is supplemented by instructions as to its application, then I think it would be a good thing. BTW, if C3 powers are ever extended to TD's as well, then there will be no use whatsoever for C2 anymore. > For that matter, even if you don't agree with a decision [and I don't > in the one you are quoting] L12C3 leads to a softer process, eliminating > some of the really harsh decisions. It is acceptable generally if used > with commonsense. Yes, if it is used with common sense it will smoothe out harsh judgements. > When I originally espoused L12C3 in the ACBL I assumed that Districts > and Units ran competent Appeals processes. If this is not the case then > I would suggest that the ACBL > [a] enables L12C3 for NABCs only > [b] lays down instructions for its use > [c] educates Districts and Units in proper appeals processes > [d] refuses to license Regionals and Sectionals unless they conform to > sensible Appeals policies > [e] considers enabling L12C3 at a wider level only when the Appeals > process becomes adequate Yes, this is exactly why I _do_ support C3 even though I think it is a badly written law. Taking these sorts of steps seems a desireable thing. > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu PS: I _like_ '3 strikes' laws, FWIW. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 01:31:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:31:45 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA20763 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:31:34 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28599 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:29:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809151529.KAA28599@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeals Case #35 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:29:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > But the AC will use their "feelings" with or without L12C3. > > Without L12C3, the AC will make a L12C2 ruling in favour of one side or > the other. > > The "vague antipathy for one side or the other", or the fact of having > "been cowed by the impressive credentials of some world-class appellant" > will still exist, and the result of it will be that one side will get > far more than they deserve, and the other far less. > > Why can't you see that a varied score is better than a black or white > one ? It is only better if: a) The original choices are white and black, and b) The substituted score is some shade of gray, and c) Some shade of gray is the equitable score. There is nothing in C3 that says that a committee cannot replace a C2 score of -400 for the OS with a score of -1400, or an already lenient -200 with -50. (In point of fact, I think in the ACBL we will very often find C3 simply used as an excuse to skip the process altogether and assign A+/A-.) > I liked the analogy of "the penalty for arson is exactly 100 days in > prison", but a better analogy is : "the penalty is exactly 25 years". > Without L12C3, the judge will have to rule 25 years or letting the poor > pyromaniac go free; with L12C3, the judge can sentence the fellow to 6 > months community service (as a fireman). Or if he doesn't like the guy he can have him drawn and quartered, or if he likes him he can give him a medal. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 01:37:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:37:36 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA20793 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:37:23 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-45.uunet.be [194.7.13.45]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08460; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35FE892A.D14D3254@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:35:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Jan Volhejn , Sergei Litvak , Nancy Dressing , Herman De Wael , Tony Musgrove , Igor Temirov , Gordon Bower , Roger Pewick , Stefanie Rohan , Jacques Brethes , Jan Romanski , Lily Gareeva , Nick Gaisky , Arseny Shur , Sergey Lebedev , Dany Haimovici , "Pavel Pikný" Subject: Announcing : the second BLML - ss Finland Simultaneous Challenge X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last year a number of BLML members held heats of the first challenge in their clubs, with 263 pairs competing. This year we will do the same, and we will undoubtedly break this total. The tournament will be organised between thursday 29 october and sunday 1 november (*), and is intended to commemorate the birthday of Contract Bridge, on 31 october 1925. read all about it on : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/finland.html People interested in joining this tournament will contact me by e-mail. (*) Not more than one day er city, of course. First reply or friday will have preference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 02:05:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:05:34 +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 CAA21056 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:05:26 +1000 Received: from client1536.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.54] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zIxeD-0002ud-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:08:10 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde0a0$fc340a20$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: Bridge Laws Date: 13 September 1998 18:27 Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:48:20 +0200, Herman De Wael Jesper: L12C3 in itself is strange: it basically says "ignore L12C2 whenever you feel like doing so". Guidance on how to recognize situations where L12C3 is to be used is necessary for this to make sense at all. -- ++++ Since I believe that only rough equity is attainable I also believe that guidelines for TDs and ACs are to be encouraged. Implementation of law is very much for the regulating authorities (a better phrase than SOs because of their diversity). Whilst the WBFLC has a "function and duty" (sic) to establish and interpret the law it is not an enforcement agency. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 02:06:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:06:20 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21070 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:06:05 +1000 Received: from client1536.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.54] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zIxeV-0002ud-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:08:27 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Linda Weinstein" Cc: Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:35:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde0b6$16b87920$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: Bridge Laws discussion group Date: 15 September 1998 02:56 Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille >Rich and I scrutinize these very carefully and resolve any >problems with the appropriate Committee Chairman. The Directors are >getting more and more diligent about correctly filling them out. I have >several very fat notebooks from the last 8 NABCs. ++ Constant dripping weareth away the faucet? ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 02:06:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:06:22 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21072 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:06:15 +1000 Received: from client1536.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.54] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zIxem-0002ud-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:08:45 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" , "BLML" Subject: Re: 12C3 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:00:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde0b9$84c1b1e0$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 EndicottTheir feelings about equity are, moreover, simply beyond >challenge, because the practical effect of L12C3 is to strip the concept of >equity of any legal encumbrances, leaving it pretty much to the AC to work >out de novo. Until now, the definition of how to restore equity was the >province of the Laws. It's as if the lawmakers have announced, "We're >tired. You guys work it out." > ++++ As far as my recollection goes the laws pre-12C3 only mentioned equity in one place - as an objective so far as possible for the Director when he had a choice between penalty and adjusted score. The laws are about rectification of procedures, redress for damage, penalties for infractions. Until 12C3 they did not contemplate objective equity as an aim but rather the implementation of statutory formulaic compensatory arrangements. Adoption of 12C3 does require an input of bridge judgement democratically exercised and, consistently with its historic attitudes, the WBFLC has nominated appeals committees as the most likely source for it. Any attempt to use judgement opens the door to debate and the fact that judgements are debatable is one valid factor in the effort to institute something better than the summary process of 12C2; the debate is the refinery for the quality of the judgements (see BLML of late!). Of course I do respect a reluctance to adopt 12C3 if it is felt the personnel are lacking who would make a fair fist of the judgements. But we may ask are the human resources not available, or is it the guidance and leadership that falls short? ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 02:42:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:42:22 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21232 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:42:15 +1000 Received: from mike (user-37kbm3j.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.115]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA05142 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915124344.0071b5c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:43:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980915002346.0071bae4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:15 AM 9/15/98 +0100, David wrote: > Our Laws are similar. When you have a case where a person has chosen >amongst LAs without L12C3 you adjust either fiercely or not-at-all. In >the Reno case-book there is a case where a slow 3S doubled is pulled to >4H. I am sure that over 90% of you would pull it to 4H. Under ACBL >rules we have to rule that back to 3S doubled making, a dreadfully harsh >decision. Other jurisdictions would give an in-between score, say 25% >of 3S*=, 75% of 4H=, and people would find it much fairer. They would >still find it fairer even if one Committee gave 40% of 3S*=, 60% of 4H= >and another 10% of 3S*=, 90% of 4H=: that is still fairer than forcing >the ruling to be 100% of 3S*=, 0% of 4H= to avoid differences. Of >course, it does not avoid differences anyway, it just makes them more >extreme. There were two of these 90%-type rulings at Reno: one was >adjusted, the other not. > Your example here provides an excellent basis for examining our dispute about what constitutes fairness. When we evaluate an adjudication process for fairness, two characteristics which should be foremost in our minds are consistency and objectivity. As an appellant, I may consider a particular ruling to be harsh, but if I can be shown the objective standard upon which it is based, and if I can be confident of getting the same ruling next week from a different committee when I'm on the other side of the facts, then I cannot reasonably condemn the decision as unfair. If, on the other hand, the best the committee can offer in defense of its decision is a statement that the result resonates with their feelings about equity, I will certainly wonder whether either my political connections or my cleavage were perhaps insufficient to sway the committee. Objectivity and consistency are ideals, not ultimately attainable. Comments by Herman, Linda, and others seem to take the view that since all judgements are in large part subjective and committees will always yield inconsistent results, these two properties are poor measures of fairness. I disagree. Consistency and objectivity are the sine qua non of fair adjudication, and giving up on them because our record of achievement is so spotty is to throw in the towel on any hope of a fair process. In this vein, your suggestions about how to improve the Appeals process, particularly through improved education, are right on target. Does the ACBL's definition of LA's lead to some ridiculous decisions? Absolutely. I much prefer the European approach on this matter, but that is really just an argument about _which_ objective standard to apply, not over whether there should be one. Does L12C2 provide the best guidance possible about how to do equity? It is certainly a fair question. Maybe instead of the "most favorable likely result" it should instruct us to choose the "most likely favorable result". Does it make sense to give an AC greater latitude in score adjustment? I don't think it will make the job of the AC any easier, but in the context of some objective standard of equity, it may lead to more acceptable score adjustments. Unfortunately, L12C3 provides no such standard. Although I'd be perfectly content to give such unfettered authority to someone such as yourself, I have far less faith in most AC's (on either side of the pond) to apply this Law in a way which will increase either the perception or the reality of the fairness of the appeals process. (With apologies to David for double-posting). Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 03:28:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:28:03 +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 DAA21350 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:24:49 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23990 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:22:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809151722.MAA23990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:22:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probably my last comment about this issue. > I believe that in order to consider an adjustment that the MI must have > influenced the NOS to go wrong by some, perhaps small, amount. I don't Do you mean "it must have been _possible_ that the MI influenced the NOS to go wrong"? Do we actually have to show that the NOS really used that evidence in their decision-making? > believe the amount matters, only the direction of the influence. Here fewer > diamonds in the North hand clearly makes bidding 4S less attractive, not > more attractive. How much less attractive? Under Law 40 there's no need to > ask. Yes, there is. :) > By passing the Law 40 test we are not yet committed to adjusting the score > for either side. For that we must refer to Law 12C2. Some people on this list will say that this is incorrect, on a technicality. If we have passed the L40 test, we _are_ committed to adjusting the score. Of course, L12 may tell us to adjust it to a score identical to the table result. But L12C2 begins "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity....". > Law 40C reads > > "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' > failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an > adjusted score." > > It does not say "solely through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does > it say "mostly through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does it say > "substantially through its opponents' failure to explain". No, but it says "has been damaged". If the MI is tiny, and almost certainly had no effect on my decision, then it didn't damage me. If there was a 70% chance I'd choose a certain bid, and MI made it 70.0001% likely, then the odds are that the MI didn't damage me _at all_. > I understand its intent to be that, as you say, the misexplanation must be > relevant to the damage, or as Kaplan put it the damage must be conseqent to > the misexplanation. There is no quantitative test here, nor should there be > one. > > To help understand, put yourself in the position of the player in receipt > of the MI. If you'd have taken a more successful action with the correct > information there will be no doubt in your mind that you've been damaged by > the MI, and you'll be right. Since the director and committee cannot know > what you would have done, only what you might have done, they can only look > at the bridge evidence and see whether the correct information would have > made the winning decision more attractive. If they judge it would have, to > any degree, they must move on to Law 12. Why can't they ask "how likely is it exactly that you'd have taken the correct action _except for the MI_?" This seems to be a reasonable question to ask when determining whether I have been _damaged_. > AW > Two cases. In each case, Action A is the successful result, Z unsuccessful. Case 1: Without MI, A is 65% likely and B 35% likely. With MI, A is 64.9% likely and B 35.1% likely. Case 2: Without MI, A is 99% likely and B 1% likely. With MI, A is 90% likely and B 10% likely. The player chooses 'B' in both cases. It _seems_ that your position requires us to adjust in 1 but not in 2, despite the fact that _the MI_ was much stronger and more misleading in 2 than in 1. But in case 1, then MI did 'influence the NOS to go wrong by some small amount', and L12C2 tells us that action B was certainly 'at all probable' and also likely. Ergo, we must adjust. Right? In Case 2, although the MI is 90 times more misleading, B is not [in many jurisdictions] at all probable/likely, and so we do not adjust. What this means is that whether we adjust on these grounds _has nothing to do with how misleading the MI is_, but varies _only on the a priori probability of the alternative action without the MI_. This is not my idea of 'damage'. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. [Some of your comments in earlier posts suggest you have somethign else in mind.] Perhaps you have made this amply clear and I'm dense. If I'm wrong, please clarify. My position is that L40 and L12C2 are meant for to answer _two different questions_. L40 is supposed to answer "was there any damage?" L12C2 is supposed to answer "Now that we've decided there was damage, what do we do about it?" Using L12C2 alone means that a side has been damaged whenever the alternatine a likely one, regardless of how trivial the MI might be, and has not been damaged if the alternative was unlikely, no matter how severe the MI. Regretably, L40 gives us no explicit guidelines to determine if there is damage. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 03:29:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:23 +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 DAA21385 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:17 +1000 Received: from ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.115]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980915173213.KRFO2535.fep4@ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:13 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:12 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3605a40f.3938403@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, 13 Sep 1998 17:49:55 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: > " The Committee considered the situation in regard to >purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman=20 >drew attention to the effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the=20 >intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit >the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after >thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention >that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the=20 >player's judgement. This is an interesting example of "interpretation" by the WBFLC, since it forbids an action that is clearly and explicitly allowed by the letter of the law. The law does not mention any distinction between "stupid mistakes" and other mistakes. It seems to me that a change of the L25B wording will be necessary for this to be effectively implemented in practice. I would hate conversations like: - Director, may I make a L25B change here? - No, it was not a stupid mistake, you just changed your mind. - Would you mind reading the rule from the law book? I read L25B. - But it says I may change my call! - Yes, but the WBFLC says they didn't mean what they wrote. If the WBFLC wants to help people who make "stupid mistakes", I think it would be much better to allow "stupid mistakes" in L25A and to change L25B to not allow any non-L25A changes at all. The only time I've made a L25B change myself, the mistake was forgetting which 1NT range I was playing with a substitute partner. Would this qualify as a "stupid mistake"? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 03:29:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:33 +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 DAA21396 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:24 +1000 Received: from ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.115]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980915173225.KRFS2535.fep4@ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3606a441.3988725@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, 14 Sep 1998 02:05:56 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>Otherwise a pair could >>go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more >>favorable than the one assigned by the directors. > > That is considered a normal reason to appeal in the EBU. Does the EBU have a guideline that helps people determine which L12C2 adjustments it does not make sense to appeal? Is it, for instance, routine to appeal in all cases where there are multiple possible outcomes so that a weighted average might be considered by an AC? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 03:29:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:45 +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 DAA21412 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 03:29:36 +1000 Received: from ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.115]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980915173234.KRFV2535.fep4@ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:34 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:32:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3607a465.4024857@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809150117.VAA27527@primus.ac.net> In-Reply-To: <199809150117.VAA27527@primus.ac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:57:57 -0400, Linda Weinstein wrote: >There has been only one appeals case that has generated lengthy = discussion >regarding Law 12C3 in my memory. It is Case 16 from the Albuquerque. I >thought >is was quite an interesting case. Here it is in its entirety from the >Casebook. > >Enjoy I did enjoy it! Thanks. I'm clearly on the "assign 1100" side here. >Rosenberg: =93Sorry, Rich, I don=92t see the problem with plus 1100 for = N/S. Why >are they denied the right to the score they might well have achieved = against a >West who properly raised what should have been a forcing 3*H* bid? Exactly. >Wolff: =93Please everyone read Colker=92s opinion. As far as I=92m = concerned to >award >N/S plus 1100 in an IMP Pairs event is shameful. What about those poor >innocent >people at all those tables sitting the same direction? If their opponents play as badly as EW did here, they'll probably also score 1100. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 04:53:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:53:31 +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 ESMTP id EAA21788 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:53:22 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ0Gw-00029K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:56:19 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:40:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:40:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper > On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:35:19 +0100, David Martin > wrote: > >>Second point, the psyche is part of > >> the infraction and not subsequent to it. ########### > > I don't understand that. The infraction was a Multi 2D opening > out of turn. The psyche was a 1H call after the infraction had > been dealt with. > > > ########### If one is considering that a player 'could have known' at > the time he BOOTed 2D that he might subsequently psyche then surely > bidding 1H is merely completing the potentially planned infraction and > therefore could be considered part of a single infraction. Or, put it > another way, if one is considering that a player 'could have known' at > the time he BOOTed 2D that he might psyche his subsequent bid then the > plan to do so is an (quite serious) infraction, the 2D is the first > part of it and the 1H is the second part. ############## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 04:53:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:53:32 +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 ESMTP id EAA21789 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:53:23 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ0Gx-00029K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:56:19 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:41:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:41:32 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter wrote: > Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being > intended as > lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit? > > ######### No, IMO. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 04:57:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:57:15 +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 EAA21829 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:57:09 +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 LAA19773 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809151859.LAA19773@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:57:48 -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 Linda Weinstein's quote from the Albuquerque casebook should be good advertising for the casebooks. It shows the sort of interesting discussions that the ACs and expert panelists have for every case, not just this one. The discussions are often instructive, but are of interest for another reason: They reveal the latest thinking of Colker and others as to what principles should guide TD and AC decisions. One learns that some panelists are extremists (e.g., the BOB), some find artificial score adjustments quite acceptable, and some (Ron Gerard for one, IMO) are extremely good at articulating their well-reasoned opinions. Rich Colker's editorial comments and summations are well done too. The casebooks should be required reading for every ACBL TD and every person who serves on an AC at sectional or higher-rated tournaments. > Rigal: The Directors might well have assigned some Average Plus/Average Minus > result here in view of the follow up. Such common panelist support for artificial score adjustments is surprising. It may be tempting to use artificial adjustments to avoid the perceived inequity of L12C2, but IMO it is not legal. > Would it not be possible for the ACBL to adopt L12C3 but restrict its application in the way that most ACBLers evidently prefer? That preference seems to be that L12C3 only be used to "vary an assigned score" for the NOS by combining the probabilities of various results that might have occurred with no infraction, excluding unfavorable results that have less than 0.5 probability. Maybe I'd better explain that last clause with an example: If the table result, although not a favorable result, had a 50% or better chance of occurring without the infraction, count it in. Otherwise, leave it out if there are one or more possible favorable results. Varying the assigned score of the OS would only be permissible when there are multiple "most unfavorable" results at all probable that have roughly equal probability. Absent that, use L12C2 and pick the worst. No mixing in of artificial scores (Lille 23), no assignment of less favorable results to the NOS because of some non-egregious misbid or misplay subsequent to the infraction (Lille 35), no "protecting the field," and no PPs. However, in accordance with the "Kaplan Principle," if the NOS shoots itself in the foot (feet?) subsequent to the infraction, no redress, adjust for the OS only (by assigned score, not by PP!). Ignore results that are so unlikely you have to dig to find them. I have always believed that L12C3 should be applied as a variance of L12C2, not as a replacement for it. If I am wrong about this majority preference, I don't mind being corrected. Every time someone corrects me, I feel that I am a better person than I was before. Nema problema! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 05:08:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:08:10 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21858 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:08:02 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:05:03 -0700 Message-ID: <35FEBAF2.7AE69C3B@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:07:30 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > in response to: > > If a player bids 2H to show spades and a minor then 2H hasrelated > > to a specified suit or suits. It has related to spades. That > > is most people's understanding of the English language IMO. > > > +++ Well, I do have difficulties with some of Edgar's choice of > language, but his style was in general to exclude what he did not > say, so that a call which related to a specified suit and an > unspecified suit was not a call that 'related to a specified suit > or suits'.+++ Well - maybe this is one of Pandora's boxes that does need to be opened. I find it impossible in the long run to continue in a no man's land between the correct interpretation of the English language, EK's interpretation of it, and EK's actual intentions. For future (and also present I guess) generations it seems essential to "de-personify" the Laws of Bridge, and make them understandable also for people who cannot read EK's mind. It might also be that certain things that EK desired to achieve are not shared by the vast majority of players, bridge-scholars and law-makers. I as everyone else have enormous respect for EK's contributions in this (and other) areas of bridge, but we must try to be practical. In the example at hand, it seems to me the correct English interpretation is indeed as the statement on top describes. Doesn't it seem sensible that we try to determine if that also results in the logically desired effect and, if it doesn't, to re-write the text so that it does, when interpreted in mainstream English irrespective of if it coincides with "EK-english" or not? In other words, if we are happy with what EK's intentions in this Law, wouldn't it serve also his interests that we re-wrote it in English? I'm not an expert but wouldn't the following more correctly reflect EK's intent - if it was as Grattan implies?: "...related only to one or more specified suits..." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 05:08:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:08:21 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21872 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:08:16 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:05:12 -0700 Message-ID: <35FEB1FF.69D5E668@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:29:19 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: <199809141625.JAA28673@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > I realized (as I wrote) that "something specific" was not specific > enough, but lack the ability to put the thought into better words. > However, I would say that your example is not a "specific" message, > but merely a negative inference. "Specific" means to me something > like "also shows four or more clubs," or "shows a two-suited hand, > second suit unknown," i.e., something positive. > > Maybe someone could suggest a better way to word the sentence? All > I want to do is put into clearer English (for us Americans) the > intent of the current definition. I am not suggesting a change to > the definition, which is a side issue. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Three words that come to mind are "INFERENTIAL", "DERIVATIVE" and "SECONDARY". I think all these words may provide a definition to what was NOT intended to constitute a "convention". The meaning that a 1H opening denies a 7 card spade-suit can be "derived from" or "inferred from" the 1H opening by any player, and is thus not a "conventional" agreement within the partnership only. I don't know how yet how to put this in *positive* terms, but in the negative maybe one can include a qualifying sentence along the lines: "The existence of secondary meanings that can be derived or inferred from a call by any reasonably competent player, does not in itself make the call a "convention" under this definition". Better (maybe simpler) formulations can surely be found, but I believe the inclusion of either of those three words point us in the direction we're aiming. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 05:20:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:20:10 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21936 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:20:04 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:23:04 -0700 Message-ID: <35FEBF2B.5EE3EBE4@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:25:31 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: 12C3 References: <199809141613.LAA10877@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a thought: Would it satisfy most concerns if one added that adjustments based on 12C3 had to be *unanimous* rather than a majority of the AC, and that if unanimity cannot be reached then AC was forced to strictly implement 12C2?? Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > Notice that this means that L12C2 is void as soon as any matter is > taken to committee. It is logically impossible for a committee to think > that a ruling under L12C2 is more equitable than one under L12C3. Ergo, > all AC's should ignore C2 once the matter is referred to them, except > possibly to evaluate charges of Director error. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 06:02:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:02:37 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22096 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:02:31 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:05:32 -0700 Message-ID: <35FEC91F.95AAD6E5@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:07:59 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <3.0.1.32.19980915002111.006e66a0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > But it is cynical and ultimately self-defeating to argue that because all > judgement has a subjective component, we should not be bound by laws which > seek to confine judgements within a framework of objective standards. It is > the proper function of the Laws to guide TD's and AC's in how to "do > equity", by providing objective criteria against which decisions can be > measured. This sounds good on it's own but falters since you imply L12C2, unlike L12C3, contains such "objective criteria". Clearly, the criteria of "likely" and "at all probable" are both *subjective*, as well as lacking definition. It gives a false sense of objectivity when you pick "objective" mathematical results ("most favourable", "most unfavourable") from a *subjectively* selected group of results. > But no category of bad decisions makes me more > irate than those in which the AC displays a cavalier disregard of the Laws > (Lille#23 is State's Exhibit A). Lille#23 had nothing to do with L12C3, so State's Exhibit A will not be entered in the records! Lille#23 was about one person's abuse of power by making rulings that have no base in the Laws at all. > Some TD's and some AC's (and at least one > unnamed SO) believe that they know what's in the best interest of the game, > and to hell with the Laws. To explicitly empower an AC to "do equity" > without any objective standard of what that does or should mean is to > invite more of this type of abuse, not less. Aside from the fact that AC's can be held accountable when ruling in contravention of the laws, abuse of power based on L12C3 could be minimised by applying a guideline saying that L12C3 rulings cannot be my majority, but rather require a unanimous AC (if not possible return to 12C2). Not abuse-proof, but would weed out the type of abuse you referred to. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 06:11:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:11:22 +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 GAA22183 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:11:14 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17530 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:08:05 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809152008.PAA17530@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:08:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras > > Just a thought: > Would it satisfy most concerns if one added that adjustments based on > 12C3 had to be *unanimous* rather than a majority of the AC, and that if [Or rather than a chairman of the AC acting alone... :)] > unanimity cannot be reached then AC was forced to strictly implement > 12C2?? > A reasonable regulation, yes. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 06:41:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:41:00 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22384 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 06:40:53 +1000 Received: from modem49.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.177] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJ1x3-0007xJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:43:54 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: More Extracts from Lille. Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:41:53 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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) Eighth Extract from minutes of WBF Laws Committee in Lille. " Footnote to Law 25B1. Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Directorexplains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B. " Ninth Extract from the same. " Laws 20F1 and 20F2 In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction' in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognized that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances." Tenth Extract from the same. " The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it : it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from Player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his Partner B was correct. Players must correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws. " From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 07:10:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:10:15 +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 HAA22510 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:10:09 +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 OAA06187; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809152112.OAA06187@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:09:35 -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 Jan Kamras wrote: > I'm not an expert but wouldn't the following more correctly reflect EK's > intent - if it was as Grattan implies?: > "...related only to one or more specified suits..." Obviously the intended meaning, retired English teacher Alice tells me, but a good example of how an expert communicator (Jan?) could remove the ambiguities most of us find in the Laws. EK's tendency toward economy of expression was suitable for *The Bridge World*'s sophisticated readers, but not for a card game's rule book that must be understood by all strata, even mine. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 07:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:59:06 +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 HAA22736 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:59:01 +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 PAA11495; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809152201.PAA11495@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:59:02 -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 Jan wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > I realized (as I wrote) that "something specific" was not specific > > enough, but lack the ability to put the thought into better words. > > However, I would say that your example is not a "specific" message, > > but merely a negative inference. "Specific" means to me something > > like "also shows four or more clubs," or "shows a two-suited hand, > > second suit unknown," i.e., something positive. > > > > Maybe someone could suggest a better way to word the sentence? All > > I want to do is put into clearer English (for us Americans) the > > intent of the current definition. I am not suggesting a change to > > the definition, which is a side issue. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Three words that come to mind are "INFERENTIAL", "DERIVATIVE" and > "SECONDARY". I think all these words may provide a definition to what > was NOT intended to constitute a "convention". > The meaning that a 1H opening denies a 7 card spade-suit can be "derived > from" or "inferred from" the 1H opening by any player, and is thus not a > "conventional" agreement within the partnership only. > > I don't know how yet how to put this in *positive* terms, but in the > negative maybe one can include a qualifying sentence along the lines: > "The existence of secondary meanings that can be derived or inferred > from a call by any reasonably competent player, does not in itself make > the call a "convention" under this definition". > > Better (maybe simpler) formulations can surely be found, but I believe > the inclusion of either of those three words point us in the direction > we're aiming. > Yes, a good direction, but I don't want to include bidding three-card suits before four-card suits, or four-card suits before five-card suits, as conventions. The word is TREATMENT for those practices, which cannot always be "derived or inferred" by the opponents. Since unusual TREATMENTS must be disclosed, that should be no problem. Don't want SOs to think they can control TREATMENTS, so must make it clear that they are not conventions. It's difficult to deal with such far-fetched ideas as always opening the bidding with 1C when holding three or more, even with a seven-card side suit. However, if that is the partnership practice, then it's a TREATMENT, not a convention, unless the definition is to be drastically revised. Among the three words, I guess I prefer SECONDARY, but any of the three would probably do. Another try: ######## The existence of secondary meanings unrelated to one or more specific denominations, or not guaranteed, does not make a call a convention, nor does an agreement as to overall strength or general hand distribution. ######## Thus, if a suit opening guarantees a longer suit somewhere, or conveys information about one or more other denominations, it's a convention. A guarantee as to overall strength or general hand distribution (e.g., unbalanced) does not make a call a convention. BTW, a canape' opening does *not* guarantee a longer suit somewhere. Time to ride my bike, Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 08:32:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:32:25 +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 ESMTP id IAA22979 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:32:17 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ3gq-0003ux-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:35:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:10:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Peter Haglich writes >Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being intended as >lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit? It seems obvious to me. And would be illegal if you'd opened 2D OOT to silence partner, but *it* *was* *inadvertent* -- 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 Sep 16 08:32:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:32:26 +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 ESMTP id IAA22982 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:32:20 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ3gp-0001ZJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:35:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:13:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <199809142246.SAA05518@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809142246.SAA05518@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grant C. Sterling" >> Suppose, OTOH, you have a weakish hand with a heart void and >> decide to psyche 1H. Now you clearly _would_ implement the proceedures to >> ban partner, right? Ergo, you 'could have known' that banning partner >> would be to your advantage if you have decided to psyche. > >The above quote identifies where the problem lies. > >_Given that you have decided to psych_, then of course it's helpful if >you can bar partner. But the real question is whether the hand >qualifies for "could have known." That is, would a reasonable player >_expect_ that barring partner and then psyching would improve his score >versus the expectation of bidding normally? > >I suppose if the hand is weak enough, or if the opponents are already >in a strong auction, that might be so, but I don't think one could make >a case that it is true in general. Letting partner bid might lead to a >paying sacrifice, or the opponents might bid too high and go down on >bad breaks, or the opponents might manage to double the psych and all >corrections for a huge loss. But if you can make a case, on a given >hand, that "bar partner and psych" is a likely winner versus normal >bidding, then of course L72B1 calls for an adjustment. I've got a 6025 2 count. I stay schtumm. maybe the bad break will kill them. How did I know they were going to open 1D and give me the opportunity to produce a 100 entry blml thread? -- 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 Sep 16 08:35:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:35:04 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23019 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:34:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA25574 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA06465 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:38:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809152238.SAA06465@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > Lille#23 was about one person's abuse of power by making rulings that > have no base in the Laws at all. The complaint is that the "one person" could claim that his ruling was in accord with equity and is therefore authorized by L12C3. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 08:52:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:52:03 +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 IAA23138 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:51:56 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA25762 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA06527 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:55:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809152255.SAA06527@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I've got a 6025 2 count. I stay schtumm. maybe the bad break will kill > them. Maybe we have a good save (or even a make!) in either black suit, but how am I going to find out if I silence partner? Psyching 1H, even if there were a legal way to silence partner, seems bizarre. My bridge judgement is that "could have known" doesn't apply on this hand, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise. Nothing I've seen so far has done it, though. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 08:53:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:53:07 +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 IAA23161 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:53:01 +1000 Received: from ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.52]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980915225603.NHCM2535.fep4@ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:56:03 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:56:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35feeb9e.447813@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, 15 Sep 1998 19:40:07 +0100, David Martin wrote: >> Or, put it >> another way, if one is considering that a player 'could have known' at >> the time he BOOTed 2D that he might psyche his subsequent bid then the >> plan to do so is an (quite serious) infraction, the 2D is the first >> part of it and the 1H is the second part. ############## Correct. But only under the assumption that he not only "could have known", but actually did know and did take advantage of the knowledge. And there does not seem to be any indication that that was the case here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 09:01:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:01:11 +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 JAA23206 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:01:05 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA25506 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA06548 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:04:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809152304.TAA06548@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke and claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jan Peter Pals" > One of the question marks is the spade queen. > South, declarer in 3NT, has made six tricks and plays the club king, > the 3 from dummy, and both West and East discard a small heart. At > this point South claims the rest, with the following statement: > 'Spade ace and king plus two clubs in dummy'. > Now West discovers his revoke and you may clean the mess. Now *here's* a good example of where L72B1 could apply. And you are most certainly going to apply L64C. Give an adjusted score under L12C2, considering declarer's side as non-offending and remembering that the heart will be a major penalty card. The result depends on the details of play up until the claim, but quite likely declarer will be deemed to guess the S-Q and win the rest. Sergei's line, if I understand it, doesn't seem to work, though. Isn't the heart discarded on the third round of spades? Anyway, if it is "likely" that declarer will guess spades, the rest is moot. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 09:10:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:10:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23231 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:10:03 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ4HQ-0007CJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:13:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:12:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980915091138.007fa6f0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19980915091138.007fa6f0@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 12:24 AM 9/15/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>++++ If the Lawbook can help him to remember something, or >>to calculate something, or to adjust his technique, then he cannot >>look at it. A pity, really, since I would like to refresh the memories >>of some players as to the courtesies. ++++ > >What about something like a penalty card? It has been my experience that >the director will tell declarer something along the lines of "should this >player's partner gain the lead while the penalty card is still exposed you >will have some options." Is the declarer entitled to know what these >options are? > >Tim > > Yes he is, and I for one explain them. For example my speech for an opening lead out of turn contains not only the five options but also the extras related to banning the suit, and leaving the card as a penalty card. I equally explain all options and follow-ups when the card becomes a penalty card not on opening lead. I then wait till all the penalties have been paid, re-explaining as necessary. I had a couple of these at the Hove congress this weekend and the players were appreciative that I'd taken the time to explain it and hang around (but that's what the EBU expects us to do) -- 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 Sep 16 09:44:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:44:42 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23298 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:44:35 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27206 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA06619 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809152347.TAA06619@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > +++ Well, I do have difficulties with some of Edgar's choice of > language, but his style was in general to exclude what he did not > say, so that a call which related to a specified suit and an > unspecified suit was not a call that 'related to a specified suit > or suits'.+++ This may be true, but I cannot imagine how to infer it from the written language used in L26A. A call as described above most certainly relates to a specified suit. That relationship doesn't disappear because the call also relates to an unspecified suit. I am sorry, Grattan, but absent a formal correction, ratified by the appropriate authorities, I cannot imagine ruling other than in accord with the plain language. > From: Eric Landau > This, quite obviously, is not a distinction the writers of L26A intended to > make, so we are left with the question of what *they* meant when they chose > the word "specified". Yes, this is the question. There is no definition of "specified." If a bid shows spades plus a minor, spades are definitely specified, hearts are definitely not specified, and it is unclear whether the minors are specified or not. > From: David Stevenson > >The EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws by Grattan Endicott and Bent > >Keith Hansen ... says that the TD > > "must place it in one of two categories - either: > >(a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than > >one suit all of which were specified; or > > > >(b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, > >one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit." I agree that the TD's first step is to decide whether L26A or L26B applies. As noted above, the language of L26A says that the proper test is whether there is at least one specified suit. > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be > >read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both > >'suit' and 'suits'. OK, fine. > > If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. But this does not follow. Even if you read "specified suits," nothing is said of the "if" being falsified if there are also unspecified suits. There is a missing "only" if that was the intended meaning. > It is very difficult to persuade people that the Laws do not mean what > they say. No doubt this is what the Laws Commission meant but it is not > what the Law says nor is it intuitively correct IMO. Good grief, David and I agree! Perhaps I should reconsider. :-) As it happens the ACBL agrees also (_Duplicate Decisions_, p. 25). I don't rely too much on DD, though, as there seem to be some other problems with its interpretation. (The edition I have *has* been updated to conform to the 1997 Laws.) In another message (which I seem to have deleted), David says that in the case of our 2H bid showing spades and a minor, the L26A lead penalty applies only in spades, not to either minor. The ACBL agrees. I probably would have guessed the opposite (saying _both_ minors are specified), but I won't argue. Of course the withdrawn call is UI, so if bidder's partner makes use of the information that partner holds a minor, there would generally be an adjustment. One further question is whether the minor _becomes_ specified if the later auction (other than by the bidder specifying the minor in the legal auction) happens to reveal which one the bidder must have had. The ACBL (DD) says that it does! I cannot believe that is right. It seems to me that "specified" must be determined at the time the call is withdrawn. If not, the NOS might want to bid out their suits to _make_ the minor specified and have the option of a lead penalty in that suit too. (They get the UI restrictions regardless.) I could be convinced I am wrong, I suppose. If so, the TD has a lot more to explain. Perhaps I owe Grattan some blank notebook pages. Or maybe a very large notebook. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 09:50:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:50:55 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23330 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:50:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.115.176] (helo=coruncanius.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ4uo-0001mh-00; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:53:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:55:51 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <35F8105E.BB521B45@village.uunet.be> >Herman wrote: >> Why would it be unwise to give unlimited powers to do good, to a supreme >> judiciary ? > >Having seen some of the more controversial rulings from Lille might I >suggest that all ACs should include an experienced TD with a power of veto >on the ruling. > Labeo: when you look at it the Lille experience is no kind of standard for judging powers for ACs. Majorities on Committees seem to have been more or less sensible and decisions in general good; the ability of a Chairman to defy majority opinion is the real problem, especially if you happen to have a Chairman with strong dissident views and no wish to listen to argument. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 11:20:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23571 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ6JK-0005JH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:35:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 In-Reply-To: <3606a441.3988725@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 02:05:56 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>Otherwise a pair could >>>go to committee if they thought 12C3 might give them a result more >>>favorable than the one assigned by the directors. >> >> That is considered a normal reason to appeal in the EBU. > >Does the EBU have a guideline that helps people determine which >L12C2 adjustments it does not make sense to appeal? No, though of course we have our cuddlies who give advice. It is their own views. >Is it, for instance, routine to appeal in all cases where there >are multiple possible outcomes so that a weighted average might >be considered by an AC? It is not routine to appeal in the EBU. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 11:20:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23570 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ6JK-0005JJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:23:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:54:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <35FEBF2B.5EE3EBE4@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Just a thought: >Would it satisfy most concerns if one added that adjustments based on >12C3 had to be *unanimous* rather than a majority of the AC, and that if >unanimity cannot be reached then AC was forced to strictly implement >12C2?? Did you write the regulations for Lille? :)) No, it is not a good idea. You do not want to tie down an AC's decision-making process unless you have *very* little faith whatever in ACs - and then you should definitely scrap the whole idea of ACs. I believe that many [most?] ACs reach their decisions without anything resembling a vote, so the difference between unanimity and not is not a matter of one vote. It would be very hard to quantify. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 11:20:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23569 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:20:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zJ6JK-0005JI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:42:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 In-Reply-To: <199809151722.MAA23990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> By passing the Law 40 test we are not yet committed to adjusting the score >> for either side. For that we must refer to Law 12C2. > Some people on this list will say that this is >incorrect, on a technicality. If we have passed the L40 test, we >_are_ committed to adjusting the score. Of course, L12 may tell us to >adjust it to a score identical to the table result. But L12C2 begins >"When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result >actually obtained after an irregularity....". While I originally said this I have shifted position. I quite like the idea of the tests in L12C2. I think the technically correct approach is ... >> Law 40C reads >> >> "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' >> failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an >> adjusted score." ... if there has been consequent damage L40C refers you to L12C2, but does say "may". It is then a matter of semantics whether you get a case with no adjustment because the tests are not met otherwise or you adjust but to the actual table score. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 12:23:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:23:37 +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 MAA23708 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:23:18 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.198]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 4333500 ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:23:56 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980915222625.007bb860@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:26:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <199809120133.2740600@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are a number of issues here. Foremost, imo, is that if it takes this many highly literate individuals so many trips to the dictionary and the style manual to figure out what the law says then the law is undesirably ambiguous. 1. I, too, began when this was first posted by going to the dictionary to look up "specified". Based primarily on the repeated use of the word "exact" in the definition of the word "specification" (to which I was referred from "specify"), I concluded that "a minor", e.g., did not constitute a specification. Less exacting language, such as "indicated" rather than "specified", e.g., might well have been used if the intent was to include a class of suits rather than a specific suit. 2. I, too, wondered whether "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits" meant "if the withdrawn call related only to a specified suit or suits", but decided that if that was what it meant then that was what it would have said. 3. Disagreement over 1 and 2 raises the question as to whether the language should be clarified in favor of one or the other interpretation. The answer to this is, from my perspective, pretty clear regardless of what is agreed to be the "official" interpretation, and doubly so if the "official" interpretation is at odds with the most literal interpretation (again, from my perspective) of what the law says. 4. It seems likely that there may be different views as to what the "official" interpretation should be. On this, I am more or less ambivalent. Clarity and consistency are more important than the actual answer in this case. Defaulting more of these cases to L26B means that there is more of a penalty imposed, but in either case the discretion of the director to apply other relevant laws should be sufficient to ensure that there is equity. As David has pointed out, Law 16C2 takes care of some of the scenarios where an offender may have gotten in some information "for free" (after, e.g., an insufficient call showing spades and a minor followed by a correction showing spades, assuming that this results in no lead penalty). Given the content of a parallel thread, I was a bit surprised that no one mentioned L72B1 in this context as well, since this seems a classic L72B1 example. [Fwiw, I think a cross-reference from L26 to L16C2 and L72B1 would be helpful.] That's my $.03 Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 12:43:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:43:06 +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 MAA23810 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:43:00 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p60.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.140]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05354 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:46:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915163848.0072808c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:38:48 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Psyche when partner is silenced Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some have quoted Law 72A5 in support of the psychic heart bid. Law 72A: Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit from their own infraction. The Law does not say 'after the penalty has been prescribed', but 'after the penalty has been paid'. It seems to me that the penalty has not been *paid* until North has passed throughout the auction, and that therefore we cannot invoke this Law in support of South's action. Or are we to assume that the law really means to say 'after the penalty has been made known to the offenders"? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 12:43:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:43:08 +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 MAA23818 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:43:03 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p60.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.140]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05371 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:46:05 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915165815.0072808c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:58:15 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Cue bid conventional? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems agreed now that a bid is not conventional if it meets any one of these criteria. 1. Shows a willingness to play in the suit named (with provisos about second suits)*or* 2. Shows length (3+ cards) in the suit named *or* 3. Shows honour strength in the suit named. Consider these two auctions. 1S - 3S - 4C 1NT - 3S - 4C In both situations, 4C shows first round control and agrees spades. In the first auction, it could be ace or void. But in the second it obviously shows the ace and not a void, and therefore meets criterion 3 for non-conventionality. In the case of insufficiency, do we treat these situations differently under Law 27? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 13:34:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:34:56 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24048 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:34:51 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lciqo.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.88]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA10953 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980915233618.0071ef00@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:36:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <199809152238.SAA06465@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:38 PM 9/15/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Jan Kamras >> Lille#23 was about one person's abuse of power by making rulings that >> have no base in the Laws at all. > >The complaint is that the "one person" could claim that his ruling >was in accord with equity and is therefore authorized by L12C3. > Thanks, my point was perhaps obscured by citing a case in which L12C3 did not figure, but your comment articulates more clearly why such a case causes much cconcern about its use. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 13:53:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:53:43 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24186 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:53:38 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:56:35 -0700 Message-ID: <35FF3786.DEC299BC@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:59:02 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <199809152238.SAA06465@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > The complaint is that the "one person" could claim that his ruling > was in accord with equity and is therefore authorized by L12C3. But he didn't claim that at all. Just re-read the write-up instead of re-writing history. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 13:59:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:59:14 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (3rgNU7qmUa4rIjwzrNj6dQjZqguDDaLS@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24206 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:59:06 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id AAA23170; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199809151722.MAA23990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:00:15 -0400 To: "Grant C. Sterling" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:22 PM -0400 9/15/98, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > Probably my last comment about this issue. > >> I believe that in order to consider an adjustment that the MI must have >> influenced the NOS to go wrong by some, perhaps small, amount. I don't > > Do you mean "it must have been _possible_ that the MI >influenced the NOS to go wrong"? Do we actually have to show that the NOS >really used that evidence in their decision-making? Not only do we not have to show that the NOS used that evidence in their decision-making, we cannot, since this would require knowledge that only they can have. As usual when the Laws deal with matters of this sort we must consider the bridge evidence. Is there a line of reasoning that shows that the proper information would have made the correct decision more attractive than it was given the MI? Here this is easy to show, as I did below. >> believe the amount matters, only the direction of the influence. Here fewer >> diamonds in the North hand clearly makes bidding 4S less attractive, not >> more attractive. How much less attractive? Under Law 40 there's no need to >> ask. > > Yes, there is. :) Why? >> By passing the Law 40 test we are not yet committed to adjusting the score >> for either side. For that we must refer to Law 12C2. > > Some people on this list will say that this is >incorrect, on a technicality. If we have passed the L40 test, we >_are_ committed to adjusting the score. Of course, L12 may tell us to >adjust it to a score identical to the table result. But L12C2 begins >"When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result >actually obtained after an irregularity....". We both know we need not consider this, so let's not. >> Law 40C reads >> >> "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' >> failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an >> adjusted score." >> >> It does not say "solely through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does >> it say "mostly through its opponents' failure to explain" nor does it say >> "substantially through its opponents' failure to explain". > > No, but it says "has been damaged". If the MI is tiny, and almost >certainly had no effect on my decision, then it didn't damage me. If >there was a 70% chance I'd choose a certain bid, and MI made it 70.0001% >likely, then the odds are that the MI didn't damage me _at all_. If this is the case then Law 12C2 will provide, in effect, no adjustment. Why do you want to try to pass a test here if the same test must be passed in 12C2? >> I understand its intent to be that, as you say, the misexplanation must be >> relevant to the damage, or as Kaplan put it the damage must be conseqent to >> the misexplanation. There is no quantitative test here, nor should there be >> one. >> >> To help understand, put yourself in the position of the player in receipt >> of the MI. If you'd have taken a more successful action with the correct >> information there will be no doubt in your mind that you've been damaged by >> the MI, and you'll be right. Since the director and committee cannot know >> what you would have done, only what you might have done, they can only look >> at the bridge evidence and see whether the correct information would have >> made the winning decision more attractive. If they judge it would have, to >> any degree, they must move on to Law 12. > > Why can't they ask "how likely is it exactly that you'd have >taken the correct action _except for the MI_?" This seems to be a >reasonable question to ask when determining whether I have been _damaged_. I am suggesting that the proper question to ask in 40C is the *direction* in which the MI led - Law 12C2 takes into account its *magnitude*. In the case in question, suppose West had bid 4S after the MI, only to discover that nine tricks was the limit. Now it's not relevant to ask even what was at all probable without the MI, since the MI could only give West reason to bid less, not more. > Two cases. In each case, Action A is the successful result, Z >unsuccessful. > Case 1: > Without MI, A is 65% likely and B 35% likely. > With MI, A is 64.9% likely and B 35.1% likely. > > Case 2: > Without MI, A is 99% likely and B 1% likely. > With MI, A is 90% likely and B 10% likely. > > The player chooses 'B' in both cases. > It _seems_ that your position requires us to adjust in 1 but not >in 2, despite the fact that _the MI_ was much stronger and more misleading >in 2 than in 1. But in case 1, then MI did 'influence the NOS to go wrong >by some small amount', and L12C2 tells us that action B was certainly 'at >all probable' and also likely. Ergo, we must adjust. Right? In Case 2, >although the MI is 90 times more misleading, B is not [in many >jurisdictions] at all probable/likely, and so we do not adjust. If this was really your last comment I'll be at a loss to understand. Let me take these one at a time. First, I don't see how you can assign probabilities to the actions taken with MI. They have happened, and we know, here, that B was taken 100% of the time and A 0%. We wouldn't be in committee otherwise! What the AC must judge are the most favorable likely and must unfavorable at all probable results had the correct information been given, as the Laws require. The AC may take into account in their assessment the data they have, that is, that with the MI the player chose B. I will try to show, in a later post (this one is already too long), that taking this into account may not always be useful. This makes the questions in cases 1 and 2 not how likely A is in the abstract, but how likely is it that the player at the table, or his peers, would have chosen A with correct information. When we construct the imaginary group of "his peers" one consideration is that they would choose B given the MI. In case 2 you haven't made it clear to me that the correct information would have made the successful choice more attractive. Before you construct another example please consider that the goal of the lawmakers should have been and must have been to make certain there is no incentive to give misinformation, even a small amount of it. But that may be a topic for another post! > What this means is that whether we adjust on these grounds _has >nothing to do with how misleading the MI is_, but varies _only on the a >priori probability of the alternative action without the MI_. This is not >my idea of 'damage'. > Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. [Some of your comments in >earlier posts suggest you have somethign else in mind.] Perhaps you have >made this amply clear and I'm dense. If I'm wrong, please clarify. Perhaps it's a complex issue! It seems clear in my mind, but I know from experience that issues involving probabilities are difficult enough to understand, never mind communicate. > My position is that L40 and L12C2 are meant for to answer _two >different questions_. L40 is supposed to answer "was there any damage?" This turns out to be not only a troublesome question but one that's unnecessary. I find it more useful to ask, as the Law does, "Was there any damage through the infraction?", or, as Kaplan did, "Was there any damage as a consequence of the infraction?". >L12C2 is supposed to answer "Now that we've decided there was damage, >what do we do about it?" Using L12C2 alone means that a side has been >damaged whenever the alternatine a likely one, regardless of how trivial >the MI might be, and has not been damaged if the alternative was unlikely, >no matter how severe the MI. I think I'm beginning to understand what you're getting at, though I don't agree with you. I believe the way to judge whether misinformation was trivial or not is precisely through Law 12C2. If it is not even at all probable that the outcome would have been different without the MI then yes, the MI was trivial and will go unpunished. >Regretably, L40 gives us no explicit guidelines to determine if there is >damage. I'm confident that it gives us none because the lawmakers thought none was needed. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 14:38:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:38:36 +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 OAA24334 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:38:30 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn22p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.27.155]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09891 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:41:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:41:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809160441.OAA09891@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Two questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:12 AM 16/09/98 +0100, John Probst wrote >Yes he is, and I for one explain them. For example my speech for an >opening lead out of turn contains not only the five options but also the >extras related to banning the suit, and leaving the card as a penalty >card. I am interested to know whether you also say anything about possible unauthorised information in the case where the OLOOT has been made a penalty card. It could be of some interest to the NOs to know some of the finer ramifications, but who has the time to lead them through the maze? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 18:14:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:14:26 +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 SAA24733 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:14:20 +1000 Received: from modem19.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJCm9-0007Uc-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:17:21 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:19:39 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: 15 September 1998 18:32 On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:49:55 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: > " The Committee considered the situation in regard to >purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman >drew attention to the effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the >intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit >the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after >thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention >that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the >player's judgement. This is an interesting example of "interpretation" by the WBFLC, since it forbids an action that is clearly and explicitly allowed by the letter of the law. The law does not mention any distinction between "stupid mistakes" and other mistakes. It seems to me that a change of the L25B wording will be necessary for this to be effectively implemented in practice. +++ I suggested to the Committee that a footnote be added. The Committee was reluctant to do this. That is certainly a change from the Kaplan style. He was quite amenable to explanations in footnotes. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 18:14:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:14:23 +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 SAA24731 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:14:16 +1000 Received: from modem19.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJCm5-0007Uc-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:17:18 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 12C3 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:08:27 +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: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: 12C3 > Date: 15 September 1998 17:43 > > At 11:15 AM 9/15/98 +0100, David wrote: > > > Our Laws are similar. When you have a case where a person has chosen > >amongst LAs without L12C3 you adjust either fiercely or not-at-all. In > >the Reno case-book there is a case where a slow 3S doubled is pulled to > >4H. I am sure that over 90% of you would pull it to 4H. Under ACBL > >rules we have to rule that back to 3S doubled making, a dreadfully harsh > >decision. Other jurisdictions would give an in-between score, say 25% > >of 3S*=, 75% of 4H=, and people would find it much fairer. They would > >still find it fairer even if one Committee gave 40% of 3S*=, 60% of 4H= > >and another 10% of 3S*=, 90% of 4H=: that is still fairer than forcing > >the ruling to be 100% of 3S*=, 0% of 4H= to avoid differences. Of > >course, it does not avoid differences anyway, it just makes them more > >extreme. There were two of these 90%-type rulings at Reno: one was > >adjusted, the other not. > > > Your example here provides an excellent basis for examining our dispute > about what constitutes fairness.> > ++++ I recall the example where the adjusted score involved a Grand Slam which would either make or go one off in the final round of an international tournament. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 18:17:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:17:43 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA24762 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:17:37 +1000 Received: from modem88.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.216] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJCpK-0008II-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:20:39 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:19:46 +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 "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 > To: Jan Kamras ; > blml > Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' > Date: 15 September 1998 22:09 > > > > if it was as Grattan implies?: ++ I am sure it is not intended but I find the word "implies" rather insulting. I am simply reporting factually that in 1986/7 I consulted with Kaplan as to his meaning, following Bavin's enquiry, and on the basis of what we agreed the EBL's interpretation was published.(As the Commentary published by the EBL states its contents were approved by the EBL Laws Committee and authorised by the EBL Executive Committee). Since that time the subject has not come to my attention again. If there is now a change of view it is for Zonal Organisations to make further interim rulings. As a matter of information part of the consultation had to do with the usefulness of being able to forbid a lead of a chosen suit in these circumstances. I would have written numbers of Kaplan's texts more exactly but he had his own opinions on the English language. and liked to think he "knew better". A pity, I thought, having spent the better part of a lifetime drafting rules and having made my contributions to English Statutes. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 22:35:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:35:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25192 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:35:30 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJGqs-0003Ke-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:38:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:01:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <199809160441.OAA09891@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 12:12 AM 16/09/98 +0100, John Probst wrote >>Yes he is, and I for one explain them. For example my speech for an >>opening lead out of turn contains not only the five options but also the >>extras related to banning the suit, and leaving the card as a penalty >>card. >I am interested to know whether you also say anything about possible >unauthorised information in the case where the OLOOT has been made a penalty >card. It could be of some interest to the NOs to know some of the finer >ramifications, but who has the time to lead them through the maze? All TDs, I trust. It is not a matter of time, but if you make the explanation too complicated then the players do not understand it: they just cannot take it all in. Therefore you have to compromise. I did not originally change my spiel when the 1997 Laws came in, to be honest because I had not thought of it. I then received an eamil from an Australian lady TD asking me how I had changed my spiel and waking me up! Here is my reply to her: ------------ ............ ----------- In my view, what is required is to add a little to the opening lead out of turn spiel, but not to add a lot - confusing the players is *not* the aim! In my little booklet Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified I have written: LEADS and PLAYS OUT OF TURN [LAWS 53 to 59] Throughout this section we assume the lead to have been a spade. AN OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN When a Defender faces an opening lead out of turn, the Director should say to the Declarer, 'You have FIVE options.' These are: (1) You may accept the lead out of turn, Partner puts his hand down as Dummy, and you play as normal, your hand first. (2) You may accept the lead out of turn, and let Partner play the hand (but no conferring). (3) You may have the spade declared a major penalty card: the correct leader may lead what he likes, but Partner's spade must be played at the first legal opportunity. (4) You may require the correct leader to lead a spade: the lead out of turn is picked up, and that Defender may play any card. (5) You may forbid the correct leader from leading a spade for as long as he retains the lead: the lead out of turn is picked up. Some people say [between (2) and (3)] "In the remaining three options that spade lead is not accepted and the correct player leads." Perhaps we should expand that: "In the remaining three options that spade lead is not accepted, the correct player leads, and he should note that he is not allowed to assume anything about why that card was led or deduce anything from it being led." You do not need to comment that it must be played and partner knows it because (3) includes it. What do you think? -- David Stevenson Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 NOTE new Fax arrangements Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 22:35:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:35:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25193 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:35:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJGqs-0003Kh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:38:33 +0000 Message-ID: <00a8cNALI6$1EwxR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:33:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: <3606fb25.8224446@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: >>>1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. >> >> Clubs are specified: clubs are not specified by another bid from the >>same player: L26A2: lead or forbid a club. >The EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws by Grattan Endicott and Bent >Keith Hansen disagrees. It says that the TD > >"must place it in one of two categories - either: > >(a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than >one suit all of which were specified; or > >(b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, >one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit." > >This is the way I rule, and I thought it was also the standard >elsewhere. Having consulted various authorities I accept that I was ruling wrong. I consider that EBL 26.3 is the correct interpretation of the Law. If a call relates to two or three suits, and not all of them are specified, then we deal with it under L26B. I consider the wording of the Law is unsatisfactory. I consider it *unfortunate* that the Laws Commission did not make the wording clearer in 1997 since they knew from Max Bavin's request for clarification in 1986 that there was a problem in interpretation. I believe that many TDs around the world will rule wrong because the Law can be so easily read in the way that I have read it, and others have done so. Because they have read something they consider clear they will not seek further clarification or interpretation. I trust that the wording of this Law in the 2007 Laws will be amended to clarify this Law and expunge these concerns. cc Max Bavin -- David Stevenson Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 NOTE new Fax arrangements Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 23:18:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:18:16 +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 XAA25305 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:18:08 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-139.access.net.il [192.116.204.139]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA07718; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:20:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <35FFBB21.FA7304AC@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:20:33 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Reg Busch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <3.0.1.32.19980915163848.0072808c@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Reg My very strong opinion is (as I already put in this thread) : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Richard's bid 1H IS NOT PSYCHE it is UI . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ask all of you please - if you agree with this opinion . Please send me your very short answer : PSYCHE or UI. Law 72A5 says you can take advantage after you paid the "crime". It is ok with me , but if we'll agree that 1H bid was UI , then can't apply 72A5 , because it doesn't allow anyone to be save of another crime after he/she paid for his first one. Dany Reg Busch wrote: > > Some have quoted Law 72A5 in support of the psychic heart bid. > > Law 72A: Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the > prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the > offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though > they thereby appear to profit from their own infraction. > > The Law does not say 'after the penalty has been prescribed', but 'after > the penalty has been paid'. It seems to me that the penalty has not been > *paid* until North has passed throughout the auction, and that therefore we > cannot invoke this Law in support of South's action. Or are we to assume > that the law really means to say 'after the penalty has been made known to > the offenders"? > > Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 23:49:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:49:14 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25374 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:49:07 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA034103930; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:52:10 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA102013928; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:52:08 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:51:57 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Cue bid conventional? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg wrote : =20 It seems agreed now that a bid is not conventional if it meets any one of these criteria. 1. Shows a willingness to play in the suit named (with provisos about second suits)*or* 2. Shows length (3+ cards) in the suit named *or* 3. Shows honour strength in the suit named. Reg. Playing " inverted majors " ie single raise forcing and short suit try := 1S - P - 2S(1) - P 3C(2) -P - ..3D(3)=85 (1) 2S is alerted as forcing, good fit, 9+ HPC (2) 3C is alerted as a short suit (singleton or void) (3) 3D shows DA and ask partner to cue bid his controls I have always alerted 3D and explain when required as DA. If I understand 3 as above, I will no more alert 3D because it is not a convention " strictu sensus "?? Or continue to alert as a treatment? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 23:51:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:51:45 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25390 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:51:38 +1000 Received: from client86e3.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.227] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zJI2a-0002aX-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:54:40 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:52:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde170$d58398c0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > It is not routine to appeal in the EBU. > +++ I am more and more inclining to the view that monetary deposits for appeals are largely ineffectual. The device of a penalty in the score for an appeal without merit is gaining favour with me. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 16 23:51:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:51:50 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25397 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:51:43 +1000 Received: from client86e3.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.227] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zJI2b-0002aX-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:54:42 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Extracts from Lille minutes of WBFLC. Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:13:55 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde173$db797260$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, 16 Sep 1998 23:51:41 +1000 Received: from client86e3.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.227] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zJI2d-0002aX-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:54:44 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde17a$287bbea0$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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 September 1998 01:12 Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' >I am sorry, Grattan, but absent a formal correction, ratified by the >appropriate authorities, I cannot imagine ruling other than in accord >with the plain language> ++ I can't imagine why you would be 'sorry'. All I have done is to draw attention to the interpretation ruled by the EBL in relation to the 1987 code of laws. I have nothing newer than this, but DWS must have if he is now teaching something different in seminars. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 00:10:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:10:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA25676 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:10:34 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA15060 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA06959 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:13:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:13:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809161413.KAA06959@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > > The complaint is that the "one person" could claim that his ruling > > was in accord with equity and is therefore authorized by L12C3. > > But he didn't claim that at all. > Just re-read the write-up instead of re-writing history. Speaking of rewriting history... Please note the difference between "could claim" and "did claim." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 00:47:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:47:17 +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 AAA27795 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:47:11 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.167]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980916144944.UVBF27948@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:49:44 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: Two questions Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:47:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde180$e09d2360$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 John Probst wrote: >>Yes he is, and I for one explain them. For example my speech for an >>opening lead out of turn contains not only the five options but also the >>extras related to banning the suit, and leaving the card as a penalty >>card. Tony Musgrove wrote: >I am interested to know whether you also say anything about possible >unauthorised information in the case where the OLOOT has been made a penalty >card. It could be of some interest to the NOs to know some of the finer >ramifications, but who has the time to lead them through the maze? Tony , When making this type of ruling we, in the ACBL, give all five options (my spiel is very much like David's) and remain at the table until the faced card is disposed of. If at some point the card is placed back in the offender's hand we caution offender's partner that the location of that 'specific' card is UI, though its location may be discerned through the bidding and the play of the hand. For the NO some semi-closing statement is made, such as 'if you feel, at the end of the play, that (s)he has gained advantage from the UI please call me back immediately after the play of this hand.' This is the short version, but I hope you get the idea. When ruling in these types of situation we try to be as informative as possible to the NO so that an intelligent choice may be made within the laws. Once a TD gets comfortable with presenting this information to the NO it is a maze that is manageable. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 00:57:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:57:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27823 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:57:34 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA17329 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07009 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:00:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809161500.LAA07009@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Having consulted various authorities I accept that I was ruling wrong. > I consider that EBL 26.3 is the correct interpretation of the Law. Does anyone know whether there is a corresponding official interpretation for North America (or indeed any other zone)? The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" book makes no claim of being official. Indeed its prefatory material is singularly lacking any mention of authorship or origin -- even a copyright notice. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 01:03:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:03:26 +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 BAA27852 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:03:00 +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 IAA17310; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809161505.IAA17310@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:02:36 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > ---------- > > From: Marvin L. French > > To: Jan Kamras ; > > blml > > Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' > > Date: 15 September 1998 22:09 > > > > > > > > if it was as Grattan implies?: LET'S GET IT CLEAR THAT THESE ARE JAN'S WORDS, NOT MINE! -- Marv > > ++ I am sure it is not intended but I find the word "implies" > rather insulting. I am also sure it was not intended. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 01:15:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:15:37 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27897 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:15:31 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25209 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:17:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-15.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.79) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025176; Wed Sep 16 10:17:48 1998 Received: by har-pa2-15.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE163.672A9DE0@har-pa2-15.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:16:08 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE163.672A9DE0@har-pa2-15.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Lille_Open_Pairs Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:21:40 -0400 Encoding: 97 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv, while a few of your posts have seemed a bit more suited to the s&m division of an equine mortuary :-), a large number of them have indeed sparked interesting discussion. Mr. Stevenson and some others have for some reason become annoyed at some of your positions, apparently. So far as I know however, no clique officially owns the list (unless one counts the feline contingent of course). I think he may be going to extremes to totally ignore all you have to say. I would suggest the same procedure I follow...if a post bores me or has little of interest, I scan it quickly and then delete it. (I'm sure some of you do likewise...even with my wonderful words ) No one can dispute the value of DWS contributions to this list. I really hope he is not picking up his marbles to be homeward bound. I value his insight and opinions. But I must suggest that this list...which I joined at his public invitation...is open to all who want to seriously discuss the bridge laws and their application. I would hope that if he has specific criticism of MLF's posts that he might let him know what he finds offensive. I would hope that if he feels others are misusing the list he would openly express his concerns so we may amend any conduct that is generally offensive. I doubt he considers the list a "feifdom", nor do I think any others do. About the only thing feudal (save for some opinions that differ from mine of course ) should be the general respect and courtesy we show each other even when we strongly disagree about matters. In this manner intelligent people, DWS and MLF included, can present a variety of viewpoints from differing perspectives and levels of expertise that should help all of us refine our understanding of how our game is to be ruled. I hope we can maintain this dignity and decorum (save for the always welcome jest) to our mutual betterment, and continue to avoid pointless bickering and backbiting. In other words we can discuss matters like the cbf and lille appeals with reason rather than the raw emotion and name calling that seems to be overtaking rgb, making some of the posts less palatable than the spam. Craig ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs David Stevenson wrote, perhaps accidentally publicly when a private e-mail would have been more appropriate: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > More of the same. > > Whatever you have said I have tried to answer and ignore the attitude. > I have tried to be helpful, giving opinions even when I know you are > holding an untenable position for no good reason. This last effort is > just one too much. I cannot continue. > > If you see fit to change your attitude to one helpful to the list > rather than detrimental no doubt someone will let me know. > Unfortunately my software [so good in other ways] does not allow a > killfile in a mailing list [because it believes all the mail comes from > Markus!] but I shall pass over your articles unread. > Someone please tell me which "last effort" he is referring to, as my last on this subject, 10:51 am this day, seems rather inocuous. I thought Mr. Stevenson was soliciting ideas for a consensus opinion on what constitutes an LA, so I threw in Kaplan's belief. Did I do something wrong? Is agreeing with Edgar Kaplan grounds for ostracism? What nerve did I strike? My critiques of NABC Appeals Cases have led to innumerable discussions on BLML, sometimes branching off serendipitously into interesting side issues. I thought this was "helpful to the list rather than detrimental." If my writing has indeed been detrimental to BLML, I'll restrict myself to RGB, which no one regards as a fiefdom. Just let me know, you won't hurt my feelings. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 01:43:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:43:37 +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 BAA27993 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:43:31 +1000 Received: from client0820.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.32] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zJJmr-0006Sy-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:46:33 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Law 40E Powers Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:32:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde187$35a3be40$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; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 01:56:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20317 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07080 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:59:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809161559.LAA07080@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cue bid conventional? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Reg Busch > It seems agreed now that a bid is not conventional if it meets any one of > these criteria. > 1. Shows a willingness to play in the suit named (with provisos about > second suits)*or* > 2. Shows length (3+ cards) in the suit named *or* > 3. Shows honour strength in the suit named. Add 4. some range of overall strength Not only are we not agreed on the above, it is clearly wrong. The test is not whether the bid shows one or more of the above; it is whether the bid shows something else _besides_ the above. A second suit is only one example of what else might be shown. For example, a heart bid that shows (by agreement) a club void is conventional, even if it shows all of the above three meanings too. Another example would be an answer to Blackwood that by coincidence happens to be the agreed trump suit. No doubt it shows willingness to play in the suit named (Blackwood bidder can pass, after all.), but it's still a convention because of the "number of aces" meaning. Reg's followup questions are quite interesting, but I don't think there is a simple answer. (I wrote a couple of paragraphs but deleted them when I realized how complicated and uncertain the answer is.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 02:02:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:02:20 +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 CAA28230 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:02:12 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA20609 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA07098 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:05:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809161605.MAA07098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Reg Busch > The Law does not say 'after the penalty has been prescribed', but 'after > the penalty has been paid'. It seems to me that the penalty has not been > *paid* until North has passed throughout the auction... Are players obliged to play badly after a revoke? Remember that the penalty (some tricks transferred) isn't _paid_ until the end of the hand. (We usually don't even know how large the penalty will be until the hand is played out; it depends on what happens later.) I suppose changing "paid" to something like "assessed" would be clearer, but I think that's what L72A5 has to mean. The game is rather uninteresting if players are not doing their best to win. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 02:03:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:03:14 +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 CAA28245 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:03:07 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.46]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 4548400 ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:03:47 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980916120935.00808d30@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:09:35 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199809161500.LAA07009@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Does anyone know whether there is a corresponding official >interpretation for North America (or indeed any other zone)? The >ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" book makes no claim of being official. >Indeed its prefatory material is singularly lacking any mention of >authorship or origin -- even a copyright notice. Duplicate Decisions, by Julie Greenberg (head of ACBL Education Department), is recommended study material for the director's exam. Someone may know of a more "official" endorsement, but this may be as official as it gets. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 02:39:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:39:29 +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 CAA28323 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:39:23 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA05546 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980916124128.00808430@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:41:28 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Law 40E Powers In-Reply-To: <01bde187$35a3be40$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:32 PM 9/16/98 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan EndicottSecretary, WBF Laws Committee. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Fourteenth Extract from WBFLC Minutes (Lille ) > >" Law 40E > > The Committee held that the (WBF) Systems >Committee (and any sponsoring organisation >likewise) has unrestricted power to identify any >method as 'unusual' and to authorise reference >to written defences at the table in countering >such methods. " I play an old-fahsioned natural system which includes four-card majors. I have frequently been asked to leave a table on OKbridge because I was playing 'unusual' methods ('unfamiliar,' 'exotic,' and 'custom' have also been used to descibe the system in prelude to asking me to leave). What do you suppose a written defense to four-card majors would contain? Tim Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 02:40:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:40:02 +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 CAA28345 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:39:55 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmgg.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.16]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA27172 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980916124120.006ec5a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:41:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <01bde0b9$84c1b1e0$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:00 PM 9/15/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ As far as my recollection goes the laws pre-12C3 only mentioned >equity in one place - as an objective so far as possible for the Director >when he had a choice between penalty and adjusted score. The laws are >about rectification of procedures, redress for damage, penalties for >infractions. Until 12C3 they did not contemplate objective equity as an >aim but rather the implementation of statutory formulaic compensatory >arrangements. I would cite L64C as another explicit invocation of "equity" as an aim of these procedural mechanisms, but really my point is broader. In a score adjustment context, "equity" is precisely compensation for damages. That is, one side has been damaged by an irregularity committed by their opponents, and we seek legal procedures through which they may may be justly compensated (their "equity" restored). In this sense of the term, "equity" is a value that has informed the score adjustment process since long before the debate over L12C3. L12C2 expresses that value in a particular procedural way, giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt in circumstances where the damages are unclear owing to multiple possible alternative results in the absence of the irregularity. Advantages of this approach include the following: 1) A high degree of protection for the legitimate interests of the NOS. 2) A (comparatively) clear-cut formula for compensation, reducing the burden on AC's and providing for (comparatively) more consistent decision-making. It is true that this approach will occasionally yield results which some will find excessively generous to the NOS, and that concern is, presumably, what led to the development of L12C3. The examples offered up by the defenders in support of L12C3 (cf Linda's Albequerque write-up) seem to cry out for a different approach: one in which the NOS is compensated up to the level of their _expected_ result (in the mathematical sense of "expected value"), absent the irregularity, rather than their best likely result. This does seem more consistent with the value of "just compensation for damages", but it also has some disadvantages compared to the L12C2 procedure. 1) Lesser protection for the legitimate interests of the NOS. They were, after all, denied a shot at the best likely result due to the irregularity. 2) A greater burden on AC's, as quantifying the expected result is much harder than identifying the best likely result. An additional aspect of this difficulty is the non-linearity in the relationships between table results and final scores (IMPs or MP). A mathematically computed expected table result may well translate to an IMP or MP score which fails to capture the AC's sense of equity. 3) Substantially less consistency in the score adjustment process, compared to the L12C2 method. Still, perhaps we should regard this procedure as superior to L12C2 in expressing the principle of "equity", understood as just compensation for damages. I personally don't agree, but if so, then L12C3 should state clearly that this is the objective, and provide some rather more specific guidelines as to its implementation. Unfortunately, L12C3 is not so clear. I have used the term "equity" in a very narrow way in the above discussion-- one which I think fairly captures the historical (pre L12C3) meaning of the word as it has been used, and one which also addresses (fairly, I hope) the concerns about "inequity" arising from such examples as Linda's. This reduces the scope of the debate to a discussion about which quantitative method of computing damages is superior. But the open-ended instruction in L12C3 for the AC "to do equity", with no procedural definition of what that means, is an invitation to abuse. For some folks, "equity" just means a "fair decision" or a result that feels right (to them, anyway). Herman's AC in #35 evidently felt that the NOS had forfeited some of their equity by less-than-optimal defense, and used L12C3 to express that judgement. Might some other AC feel that a "bad attitude" by the NOS could justify a reduction in their compensation, in the name of equity? Might it feel like an inequitable result to assign a severe penalty to a beloved member of the bridge establishment, even when such a penalty would be fairly automatic for others? Yes (I hear you already) it is true that these and myriad other extraneous concerns will always be with us, carrying the baggage of inappropriate influence upon the adjudication process. But when decisions can be held up to the light of (comparatively) objective procedural standards, there is at least some basis for accountability. That accountability disappears altogether when the procedural standards are replaced by a non-specific instruction to do whatever feels best. Whether you share Herman's feelings about equity in #35 or not, the right of his AC to adjust the score however they saw fit is guaranteed by L12C3, which also provides an effective cloak against the intrusive criticisms of nosy parkers like me. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 03:10:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:10:30 +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 DAA28491 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:10:17 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23502 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:05:40 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809161705.MAA23502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:05:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anyone who's bored with this thread can skip to the end, where I actually ask a new question.... > > No, but it says "has been damaged". If the MI is tiny, and almost > >certainly had no effect on my decision, then it didn't damage me. If > >there was a 70% chance I'd choose a certain bid, and MI made it 70.0001% > >likely, then the odds are that the MI didn't damage me _at all_. > > If this is the case then Law 12C2 will provide, in effect, no adjustment. Why not? The 'winning' bid was a 30% possibility without the MI. Depending on the interpretation of the SO [and the AC], that quite possibly _does_ constitute grounds for adjustment under L12C2. > Why do you want to try to pass a test here if the same test must be passed > in 12C2? Because I don't think there can be damage unless there is some likelihood that the MI _caused_ the incorrect bid. > > Two cases. In each case, Action A is the successful result, B > >unsuccessful. > > Case 1: > > Without MI, A is 65% likely and B 35% likely. > > With MI, A is 64.9% likely and B 35.1% likely. > > > > Case 2: > > Without MI, A is 99% likely and B 1% likely. > > With MI, A is 90% likely and B 10% likely. > > > > The player chooses 'B' in both cases. > > It _seems_ that your position requires us to adjust in 1 but not > >in 2, despite the fact that _the MI_ was much stronger and more misleading > >in 2 than in 1. But in case 1, then MI did 'influence the NOS to go wrong > >by some small amount', and L12C2 tells us that action B was certainly 'at > >all probable' and also likely. Ergo, we must adjust. Right? In Case 2, > >although the MI is 90 times more misleading, B is not [in many > >jurisdictions] at all probable/likely, and so we do not adjust. > > If this was really your last comment I'll be at a loss to understand. Let > me take these one at a time. It was going to be my last comment, but I thought I should clarify. > First, I don't see how you can assign probabilities to the actions taken > with MI. They have happened, and we know, here, that B was taken 100% of The same way we calculate them otherwise. If, for example, you think 'this bid was 65% likely without the MI' to mean '65% of peers without that MI would make that bid', then 'this bid was 64.9% likely with the MI' means that '64.9% of peers with that MI would make this bid'. [I assume neither of us wants to get into the argument about what such percentages mean in general here.] > This makes the questions in cases 1 and 2 not how likely A is in the > abstract, but how likely is it that the player at the table, or his peers, > would have chosen A with correct information. When we construct the > imaginary group of "his peers" one consideration is that they would choose > B given the MI. I don't see why we need to make that stipulation. > In case 2 you haven't made it clear to me that the correct information > would have made the successful choice more attractive. It was 99% likely without the MI, and only 90% likely with it. > > My position is that L40 and L12C2 are meant for to answer _two > >different questions_. L40 is supposed to answer "was there any damage?" > > This turns out to be not only a troublesome question but one that's > unnecessary. I find it more useful to ask, as the Law does, "Was there any > damage through the infraction?", or, as Kaplan did, "Was there any damage > as a consequence of the infraction?". That's fine. > >L12C2 is supposed to answer "Now that we've decided there was damage, > >what do we do about it?" Using L12C2 alone means that a side has been > >damaged whenever the alternatine a likely one, regardless of how trivial > >the MI might be, and has not been damaged if the alternative was unlikely, > >no matter how severe the MI. > > I think I'm beginning to understand what you're getting at, though I don't > agree with you. I believe the way to judge whether misinformation was > trivial or not is precisely through Law 12C2. If it is not even at all > probable that the outcome would have been different without the MI then > yes, the MI was trivial and will go unpunished. > > AW I understand our disagreement now--we may not disagree at all, except on proceedure. You wish to limit the group of peers to those who _would have_ certainly bid B with the MI. Then you ask 'is it likely these peers would have found the right bid without the MI', and adjust accordingly. I say we ask 'how likely is it that a player's peers [in the ordinary sense of the word] would make this bid without the MI', 'how likely is it that they would make it with the MI', and compare the difference. If that difference exceeds a certain {arguable} amount, then the MI can reasonably have been thought to have produced damage--i.e., it can reasonably have been thought to have _caused_ the bad result. [I _think_ this was what Herman, among others, had in mind. I would be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.] I think your proceedure is much harder to adjudicate. It is much easier to ask "How many intermediate pairs playing standard American {not to imply that those are _your_ peers} would bid 'A' if they heard this auction and explanation" followed by "how many of those same people would bid 'A' with _this_ explanation", than to ask yourself "what percentage of those intermediate Std. Am. players who as a matter of fact would bid 'B' with the second explanation would bid 'A' without it?" Then I have to put myself in the place of people who would make some particular bid and then imagine that _they_ get a different explanation. That's hard, especially if 'B' is a bid I personally wouldn't make. Is it common practice to consider a player's peers to be only those people who would have taken the exact same action as that player did under the circumstances? Or is it common to consider his peers to be those people with comparable experience and system? -Grant cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 03:28:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:21 +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 ESMTP id DAA28570 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:09 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJLQ4-00047n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:31:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:27:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please In-Reply-To: <35FFBB21.FA7304AC@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35FFBB21.FA7304AC@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes >Hi Reg > >My very strong opinion is (as I already put in this thread) : >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Richard's bid 1H IS NOT PSYCHE it is UI . >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It can't possibly be UI. Look at the hand again and please note that Richard's partner has not called AT ALL before Richard bid 1H. How can there be any UI? >I ask all of you please - if you agree with this opinion . >Please send me your very short answer : PSYCHE or UI. > >Law 72A5 says you can take advantage after you paid the "crime". >It is ok with me , but if we'll agree that 1H bid was UI , then >can't apply 72A5 , because it doesn't allow anyone to be save >of another crime after he/she paid for his first one. > >Dany > > > > >Reg Busch wrote: >> >> Some have quoted Law 72A5 in support of the psychic heart bid. >> >> Law 72A: Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the >> prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the >> offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though >> they thereby appear to profit from their own infraction. >> >> The Law does not say 'after the penalty has been prescribed', but 'after >> the penalty has been paid'. It seems to me that the penalty has not been >> *paid* until North has passed throughout the auction, and that therefore we >> cannot invoke this Law in support of South's action. Or are we to assume >> that the law really means to say 'after the penalty has been made known to >> the offenders"? >> >> Reg. -- 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 Sep 17 03:28:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:23 +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 ESMTP id DAA28572 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:09 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJLQ4-0001VU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:31:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:22:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two questions In-Reply-To: <199809160441.OAA09891@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809160441.OAA09891@fep6.mail.ozemail.net>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 12:12 AM 16/09/98 +0100, John Probst wrote > > > >>Yes he is, and I for one explain them. For example my speech for an >>opening lead out of turn contains not only the five options but also the >>extras related to banning the suit, and leaving the card as a penalty >>card. > >I am interested to know whether you also say anything about possible >unauthorised information in the case where the OLOOT has been made a penalty >card. It could be of some interest to the NOs to know some of the finer >ramifications, but who has the time to lead them through the maze? > >Cheers, > >Tony > Yep I do that too. Cheers John Does anyone want a copy of my speech? > -- 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 Sep 17 03:28:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:22 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28571 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:09 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJLQ4-0001VV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:31:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:29:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 40E Powers In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980916124128.00808430@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19980916124128.00808430@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 04:32 PM 9/16/98 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott>Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>Fourteenth Extract from WBFLC Minutes (Lille ) >> >>" Law 40E >> >> The Committee held that the (WBF) Systems >>Committee (and any sponsoring organisation >>likewise) has unrestricted power to identify any >>method as 'unusual' and to authorise reference >>to written defences at the table in countering >>such methods. " > >I play an old-fahsioned natural system which includes four-card majors. I >have frequently been asked to leave a table on OKbridge because I was >playing 'unusual' methods ('unfamiliar,' 'exotic,' and 'custom' have also >been used to descibe the system in prelude to asking me to leave). What do >you suppose a written defense to four-card majors would contain? > >Tim The poor diddumses. Come and play at my table :) -- 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 Sep 17 03:28:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:21 +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 ESMTP id DAA28573 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:10 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJLQ5-0003Kv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:31:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 In-Reply-To: <01bde170$d58398c0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bde170$d58398c0$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan EndicottSecretary, WBF Laws Committee. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >> It is not routine to appeal in the EBU. >> >+++ I am more and more inclining to the view that >monetary deposits for appeals are largely ineffectual. >The device of a penalty in the score for an appeal >without merit is gaining favour with me. ~Grattan~ +++ > As someone who has had their fiver confiscated by Grattan I agree. :) 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 Sep 17 04:11:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:11:32 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28771 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:11:23 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id UAA14087 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:14:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J1VQCAC9LS001W4W@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:42:01 MET Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:41:44 +0100 (MET) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:41:44 +0100 (MET) From: KOOYMAN Subject: open pairs lille To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT/11C984292A00*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C984292A00 X400-MTS-identifier: [;1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I promised to tell something about the problems we had in Lille in the open pairs. Some of the suggestions already given here come very close to what happened. We knew the movement, it was used before (Albequerque, Geneva, EBL-pairs champ.) and was used simultaneously in the seniors and women also (for other numbers of pairs), without any problem. But Murphy stroke again. The production of the instructions for the pairs was 'handmade', using a computer printout with the right movement, but we made a mistake, the most stupid thing being that by making the two we made, discovering it became impossible because every pair got an appointed seat. My main mistake was that I wasn't prepared to expect this kind of error. We used the screen guide card (the same as exists as table card in a normal howel) to make things easy, knowing that players loose their personal guide card or read the wrong line. Don't tell me how to double check, I know it. Yes the reason for the sit-outs in the last session was playing the wrong pair in the first session. I asked information about the pairnumbers to be able to answer the questions regarding the pairing in later rounds. If participation from countries is too heavy (too many players from too few countries) this movement makes it impossible to avoid late play. My instructions where to do it in such a way that play between pairs from the same country took place as soon as possible. Looking at the movement you can tell how to number the pairs to get this result. But some countries have to meet early and some later, unless you make the choice to spread the problem evenly over all countries, which means that pairs from all countries meet each other till late in the championship. I did not make that choice. I asked the scoring room after finishing the job whether they checked the outcome and they assured me it was ok. Not going into details I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the only representative from their country we need the same number of rounds to have all meetings done. Going through the data now my conclusion is that the Polish pairs could have been given better numbers, and I don't understand why they didn't. For some other countries the same, but playing with 2 or 3 pairs it was less apparent. The Dutch pairs where ok, last meeting in round 52 (they where mentioned too). So in this respect we can do better also. It is good to divide this discussion in a theoretical part and a practical. We should strive for early encounters, but having late ones does not necessarily mean that we create bias. May be the main reason to do it is to avoid these kind of discussions, protecting the players having a terrible result against their own countrymen. I don't think that in this kind of event, where mostly honour is involved, players are giving away their own result. Players from the USA once told me that the higher their USA-opponents are ranked the more they want to 'kill' them. Well, both aspects are on my list to give even more attention next time. But what will go wrong then? ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 04:59:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:59:25 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28909 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 04:59:16 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:02:18 -0700 Message-ID: <36000BCE.A045712C@home.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:04:46 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs References: <01BDE163.672A9DE0@har-pa2-15.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whow Craig - tks for trying to do to BLML what Bob Bakalish has tried on R.G.B. I hope you'll have more success though! :-) Craig Senior wrote: > > Marv, while a few of your posts have seemed a bit more suited to the > s&m division of an equine mortuary :-), a large number of them have indeed > sparked interesting discussion. Mr. Stevenson and some others have for some > reason become annoyed at some of your positions, apparently. So far as I > know however, no clique officially owns the list (unless one counts the > feline contingent of course). I think he may be going to extremes to > totally ignore all you have to say. I would suggest the same procedure I > follow...if a post bores me or has little of interest, I scan it quickly > and then delete it. (I'm sure some of you do likewise...even with my > wonderful words ) > No one can dispute the value of DWS contributions to this list. I > really hope he is not picking up his marbles to be homeward bound. I value > his insight and opinions. But I must suggest that this list...which I > joined at his public invitation...is open to all who want to seriously > discuss the bridge laws and their application. I would hope that if he has > specific criticism of MLF's posts that he might let him know what he finds > offensive. I would hope that if he feels others are misusing the list he > would openly express his concerns so we may amend any conduct that is > generally offensive. I doubt he considers the list a "feifdom", nor do I > think any others do. > About the only thing feudal (save for some opinions that differ from > mine of course ) should be the general respect and courtesy we show each > other even when we strongly disagree about matters. In this manner > intelligent people, DWS and MLF included, can present a variety of > viewpoints from differing perspectives and levels of expertise that should > help all of us refine our understanding of how our game is to be ruled. I > hope we can maintain this dignity and decorum (save for the always welcome > jest) to our mutual betterment, and continue to avoid pointless bickering > and backbiting. In other words we can discuss matters like the cbf and > lille appeals with reason rather than the raw emotion and name calling that > seems to be overtaking rgb, making some of the posts less palatable than > the spam. > > Craig > > ---------- > From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Lille_Open_Pairs > > David Stevenson wrote, perhaps accidentally publicly when a private > e-mail would have been more appropriate: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > More of the same. > > > > Whatever you have said I have tried to answer and ignore the > attitude. > > I have tried to be helpful, giving opinions even when I know you > are > > holding an untenable position for no good reason. This last > effort is > > just one too much. I cannot continue. > > > > If you see fit to change your attitude to one helpful to the > list > > rather than detrimental no doubt someone will let me know. > > Unfortunately my software [so good in other ways] does not allow > a > > killfile in a mailing list [because it believes all the mail > comes from > > Markus!] but I shall pass over your articles unread. > > > Someone please tell me which "last effort" he is referring to, as > my last on this subject, 10:51 am this day, seems rather inocuous. > I thought Mr. Stevenson was soliciting ideas for a consensus > opinion on what constitutes an LA, so I threw in Kaplan's belief. > Did I do something wrong? Is agreeing with Edgar Kaplan grounds for > ostracism? What nerve did I strike? > > My critiques of NABC Appeals Cases have led to innumerable > discussions on BLML, sometimes branching off serendipitously into > interesting side issues. I thought this was "helpful to the list > rather than detrimental." If my writing has indeed been detrimental > to BLML, I'll restrict myself to RGB, which no one regards as a > fiefdom. Just let me know, you won't hurt my feelings. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 05:10:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:10:25 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28952 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:10:20 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:13:21 -0700 Message-ID: <36000E65.326F39C0@home.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:15:49 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <199809161413.KAA06959@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Speaking of rewriting history... Please note the difference between > "could claim" and "did claim." Granted. I see now what you mean. I still think the worry is misdirected. It is only a danger if one member with a private agenda goes berserk AND the rules allow that one person to overrule everyone else. It is not an intrinsic problem of 12C3 per se. Furthermore, even in a 12C3 context, "equity" must be seen within the context of the overall Laws. An AC couldn't claim that this or that would be equitable based on "active ethics" or some other theory that doesn't form part of the laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 05:45:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:45:20 +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 FAA29078 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:45:14 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA32366 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA07445 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:48:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809161948.PAA07445@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > It is not an intrinsic problem of 12C3 per se. > Furthermore, even in a 12C3 context, "equity" must be seen within the > context of the overall Laws. An AC couldn't claim that this or that > would be equitable based on "active ethics" or some other theory that > doesn't form part of the laws. I grant that the fears many of us express don't seem to cause frequent problems where 12C3 is in effect. Nevertheless, the language of 12C3 does not contain any of the very desirable restrictions you seem to think are obvious. There is nothing _in the words_ that forbids an AC to decide equity on whatever cockeyed theory it might adopt. Some of us -- no doubt with considerable cultural bias -- are unhappy to adopt L12C3 _in its present form_. Perhaps our fears are irrational. Nevertheless, they are real and not likely to go away. If the language were different, or if specific implementing regulations accompanied the adoption, our opinions might be different. I still think, among all the things the ACBL might do to improve bridge in our zone, dealing with 12C3 is one of the lowest priorities. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 06:27:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:27:46 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29260 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:27:40 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:30:42 -0700 Message-ID: <36002086.BE420B94@home.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:33:10 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 References: <3606a441.3988725@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Does the EBU have a guideline that helps people determine which > L12C2 adjustments it does not make sense to appeal? > > Is it, for instance, routine to appeal in all cases where there > are multiple possible outcomes so that a weighted average might > be considered by an AC? I am continuing to "think aloud" on this so apologize if my comments seem a bit like "rumblings". In yet another effort to make L12C3 more appealing to ACBLers (since I hate huge zonal differences) what about if L12C3 was limited to only addressing "equity" as it relates to the criteria "likely" and "probable" in L12C2? What Jesper is alluding to above is not the way to go imo, since L12C2 specifies to choose "the most (un)favourable", which is not at all ambiguous and is easy to calculate. What leaves room for judgement is the selection of results from which this is drawn. This is where I gain the impression that many would instinctively find that equity is better served if "compromises" could be found. Let's say the table-result is NS 3D -1 = NS -50. MI existed, affecting EW's chances to find their H-fit. They in fact are cold for 4H. TD adjusts to NS -620. NS appeal. The AC agrees L12C2 is triggered but have problems establishing the "likelyhood" and "probability" of EW reaching game as opposed to resting in 3H. Some members feel 4H is not likely but somewhat probable. They would be forced to rule NS -620, EW +170. Others feel 4H is quite likely. They are forced to rule NS -620, EW +620. In either case NS gets -620 so that seems "equitable" to this AC. Rather than forcing either EW +620 or +170 by majority or whatever(noone in the two groups is very adamant in their judgements), wouldn't most involved (including the players) feel equity is served if AC can go to L12C3 and give EW a score somewhere inbetween? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 07:43:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:43:30 +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 HAA29611 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:43:23 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcir7.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.103]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA12574 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980916174448.007282a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:44:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <36000E65.326F39C0@home.com> References: <199809161413.KAA06959@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 9/16/98 -0700, Jan wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> Speaking of rewriting history... Please note the difference between >> "could claim" and "did claim." > >Granted. I see now what you mean. I still think the worry is >misdirected. It is only a danger if one member with a private agenda >goes berserk AND the rules allow that one person to overrule everyone >else. It is not an intrinsic problem of 12C3 per se. >Furthermore, even in a 12C3 context, "equity" must be seen within the >context of the overall Laws. An AC couldn't claim that this or that >would be equitable based on "active ethics" or some other theory that >doesn't form part of the laws. > Indeed they could! Moreover, the lack of procedural definition allows them to dodge the question entirely. They can fully satisfy the requirements of L12C3 merely by stating that the final score adjustment was deemed to "do equity". See Herman's defense of Lille #35. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 08:48:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:48:03 +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 IAA29714 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:47:57 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h43.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA26446; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:50:56 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3600DB91.2BA0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:51:13 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOOYMAN CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: open pairs lille References: <1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT/11C984292A00*@MHS> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Thank you, Ton, for your quick answer. And I dare to make some comments. KOOYMAN wrote: "Yes the reason for the sit-outs in the last session was playing the wrong pair in the first session." No comments. "Going through the data now my conclusion is that the Polish pairs could have been given better numbers, and I don't understand why they didn't." Neither do I. Nor participants. "It is good to divide this discussion in a theoretical part and a practical" You are right - clear theoretical discussion. But it may provide to practical decisions. "May be the main reason to do it is to avoid these kind of discussions, protecting the players having a terrible result against their own countrymen." Absolutely right. Bridge is almost unprotected game. That's why our founders gave us the Legend and the Laws, that's why there were created bidding-boxes, screens etc - for making the game more fair. And that's why contestants from the same country should meet in earlier sessions. It is no more than simple prophylacxis. Otherwise it may happen that after contest there will be rumours. "Well, both aspects are on my list to give even more attention next time. But what will go wrong then?" Then there will arise new problems, Ton. I hope - new one:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 08:51:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:51:37 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29733 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:51:31 +1000 Received: from modem113.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.241] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJQT4-0005b5-00; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:54:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:04:52 +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: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 > Date: 16 September 1998 18:25 > > In article <01bde170$d58398c0$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott > writes > > > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Stevenson > >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > >> It is not routine to appeal in the EBU. > >> > >+++ I am more and more inclining to the view that > >monetary deposits for appeals are largely ineffectual. > >The device of a penalty in the score for an appeal > >without merit is gaining favour with me. ~Grattan~ +++ > > > As someone who has had their fiver confiscated by Grattan I agree. :) > ++ Really? Was DWS the Director? We are good friends!. ~ Grattan ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 08:56:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:56:31 +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 ESMTP id IAA29755 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:56:25 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJQXe-0007Zq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:59:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:46:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cue bid conventional? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > Reg wrote : > =20 > It seems agreed now that a bid is not conventional if it meets any > one of > these criteria. > 1. Shows a willingness to play in the suit named (with provisos > about > second suits)*or* > 2. Shows length (3+ cards) in the suit named *or* > 3. Shows honour strength in the suit named. > > Reg. > >Playing " inverted majors " ie single raise forcing and short suit try : > >1S - P - 2S(1) - P >3C(2) -P - ..3D(3)=85 > >(1) 2S is alerted as forcing, good fit, 9+ HPC >(2) 3C is alerted as a short suit (singleton or void) >(3) 3D shows DA and ask partner to cue bid his controls > >I have always alerted 3D and explain when required as DA. >If I understand 3 as above, I will no more alert 3D because >it is not a convention " strictu sensus "?? >Or continue to alert as a treatment? The ACBL alerting rules are not based on whether a call conforms to the Law book definition of conventional. There is no doubt that 3D is alertable in the ACBL whether you consider it conventional or not. There are some grey areas created by their inconsistent definitions but I do not consider this case is ambiguous. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 09:27:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:27:18 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29880 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:27:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJR1Y-0006XQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:30:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:29:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Scoring at cross-imps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? Is it meaningful if you don't? Anything else? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 09:41:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:41:57 +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 JAA29913 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:41:52 +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 QAA11218; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809162344.QAA11218@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Cue bid conventional? Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:42:50 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id QAA11218 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: =20 > Reg wrote : > =20 > It seems agreed now that a bid is not conventional if it meets any > one of > these criteria. > 1. Shows a willingness to play in the suit named (with provisos > about > second suits)*or* > 2. Shows length (3+ cards) in the suit named *or* > 3. Shows honour strength in the suit named. >=20 > Reg. >=20 > Playing " inverted majors " ie single raise forcing and short suit try : >=20 > 1S - P - 2S(1) - P > 3C(2) -P - ..3D(3)=85 >=20 > (1) 2S is alerted as forcing, good fit, 9+ HPC > (2) 3C is alerted as a short suit (singleton or void) > (3) 3D shows DA and ask partner to cue bid his controls >=20 > I have always alerted 3D and explain when required as DA. > If I understand 3 as above, I will no more alert 3D because > it is not a convention " strictu sensus "?? > Or continue to alert as a treatment? >=20 Not a convention. Alert 3D anyway, because the meaning of the bid is so specific and might not be expected by the opponents. The fact that it asks partner to cue bid his controls is a secondary meaning that is a derivative of the primary meaning, not something new. If you had written, "3D shows DA and our agreement is that he should now likewise show controls," which is identical in meaning, surely no one would consider that the statement makes 3D a convention.=20 The explanation of the 3D bid should not include the fact that partner is expected to now show controls, IMO. The opponents might consider that this explanation of what the explainer is going to bid next is unacceptable UI. Rather, when the explainer makes a call that might not be understood by the opponents, Alert at that time. If any four-level or higher bid in the auction is Alertable, do not Alert it at the time, but explain it before the opening lead is made (a "Post-Alert"). However, Alertable doubles, redoubles, or passes are Alerted immediately. (Page 13 of the Alert Regulation is incorrect on this point, which is correctly explained on page 4). ACBL policy seems to be aimed at Alerting unexpected meanings of calls, and not Alerting expected meanings, regardless of whether a call is a convention or not. The ACBL Alert Regulation is rather inconsistent in applying this policy. The full 16 pages of the ACBL Alert Regulation are viewable and downloadable from the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org) "Library." A complete summary is available from me for the asking, either a two-page .txt file or a one-page WordPerfect 6.0 .wpd file.=20 Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 09:57:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:57:14 +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 ESMTP id JAA29958 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:57:08 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJRUT-0003cB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:00:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:58:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor >the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams >event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? Is >it meaningful if you don't? > > Anything else? > When I scored the 1997 world championships, I ignored scores which were adjusted entirely. I divided the imps computed by the number of comparisons actually used in order to provide a "realistic" imp score. where +3/-3 was awarded, that was what they got. 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 Sep 17 10:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:00:31 +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 KAA29974 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:00:23 +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 RAA13305; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809170002.RAA13305@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:59:33 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Does anyone know whether there is a corresponding official > interpretation for North America (or indeed any other zone)? The > ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" book makes no claim of being official. > Indeed its prefatory material is singularly lacking any mention of > authorship or origin -- even a copyright notice. My copy of *Duplicate Decisions* looks pretty official. The subtitle is *A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table*, and the ACBL is identified on the cover. The Introduction says that Part I "is designed as a guide to Club Directors to assist them in understanding the Laws of Duplicate Bridge." Also: "Part II has been revised to update Directors on ACBL regulations." I think it can be regarded as official. Chyah? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 10:01:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:01:20 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29988 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:01:15 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:04:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3600528F.11D677AC@home.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:06:39 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <199809161413.KAA06959@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980916174448.007282a8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > Indeed they could! Moreover, the lack of procedural definition allows them > to dodge the question entirely. They can fully satisfy the requirements of > L12C3 merely by stating that the final score adjustment was deemed to "do > equity". See Herman's defense of Lille #35. I'm starting to see more of the "US vs the rest of the world" in these discussions. The US is run by lawyers, for lawyers. Every written word is taken literally *and in isolation*. Common sense never enters the equation. Others tend to look at things in perspective. To them L12C3 is part of L12C which is part of L12 which is part of the Laws, ie that whatever it says it is subordinated the Laws. To them you cannot use "active ethics", "an eye for an eye", "Taiwanese common law", "the law of deminishing returns", "Murphy's Law" or some such to argue a decision under L12C3 or any other law, even if each single law doesn't specify this explicitely. I've been asked to stop beating this horse though, so this will be my last word on this (unless I get *really* provoked:-))) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 10:10:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:10:20 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA00141 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:10:16 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn22p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.27.155]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA04330 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:13:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:13:21 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809170013.KAA04330@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Extracts from Lille minutes of WBFLC. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 PM 16/09/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >Grattan EndicottSecretary, WBF Laws Committee. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Twelfth Extract > >" Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. > > Information that the player must play the penalty card >as the law requires is authorised and partner may vhoose >the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that >knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when >partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on >sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, for >example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the >suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a >different suit is a logical alternative. " > I don't understand the application of this. Does it mean that if my partner has a penalty card, and declarer says in effect "lead anything", I will still have to wonder if I have any logical alternatives to leading the suit of the penalty card if that is the suit I wish to lead. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 11:03:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:03:44 +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 LAA00266 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:03:37 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA17981 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:06:37 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980917030443.007b0db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:04:43 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please In-Reply-To: <35FFBB21.FA7304AC@internet-zahav.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19980915163848.0072808c@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:20 16-09-98 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Reg > >My very strong opinion is (as I already put in this thread) : >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Richard's bid 1H IS NOT PSYCHE it is UI . >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >I ask all of you please - if you agree with this opinion . >Please send me your very short answer : PSYCHE or UI. > >Law 72A5 says you can take advantage after you paid the "crime". >It is ok with me , but if we'll agree that 1H bid was UI , then >can't apply 72A5 , because it doesn't allow anyone to be save >of another crime after he/she paid for his first one. > >Dany > > > let me say this. I think it was a psyche, and i still think it is allowed. My problem is what the TD told to declarer. If TD uses 26B, so that decl. has the option to forbid H, then i think OK. If he has used 26A then i think opps get a redress. This point wasnt mentioned in the article i think but is important. Otherwise even a 6D doubled is down one (if opps legally knwo an Ace is out ::)). perhaps i am a minority, but we are known to accept these things better than perhaps other countries . regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 11:35:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:35:39 +1000 Received: from ATLANTICO.mail.telepac.pt (mail1.telepac.pt [194.65.3.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00358 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:35:33 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.254.230]) by ATLANTICO.mail.telepac.pt (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with SMTP id <19980917023831.CQG30760@[194.65.254.230]> for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:38:31 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Re: Extracts from Lille minutes of WBFLC. Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde1db$b54f4340$e6fe41c2@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 -----Mensagem original----- De: Tony Musgrove Para: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Data: Quinta-feira, Setembro 17, 1998 2:41 Assunto: Re: Extracts from Lille minutes of WBFLC. >At 02:13 PM 16/09/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott>Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>Twelfth Extract >> >>" Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. >> >> Information that the player must play the penalty card >>as the law requires is authorised and partner may vhoose >>the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that >>knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when >>partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on >>sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, for >>example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the >>suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a >>different suit is a logical alternative. " >> >I don't understand the application of this. Does it mean that if my partner >has a penalty card, and declarer says in effect "lead anything", I will >still have to wonder if I have any logical alternatives to leading the suit >of the penalty card if that is the suit I wish to lead. > >Tony > yes, but once you filter the UI issue and decide to lead the suit, then you are entitled to "know" that there is that particular penalty card on the table and partner will have to play it. In other words, you cannot benefit from the penalty card as a source of information, but you dont have to commit harakiri and start crashing honours. You know when you play the suit that partner will have to play the card. You dont know, when you think about what suit to play, that there is such a card. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 11:44:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:44:02 +1000 Received: from ATLANTICO.mail.telepac.pt (mail1.telepac.pt [194.65.3.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00409 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:43:57 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.254.230]) by ATLANTICO.mail.telepac.pt (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with SMTP id <19980917024655.DSQ30760@[194.65.254.230]> for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:46:55 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:45:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde1dc$e21abde0$e6fe41c2@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 > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor > the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? A+ is 3 imps, the "equivalent" of 60%. It is not logical to give 3 imps at cross imps to A+. But how much is 60% at cross-imps? I suggest (assuming a computer) that the 60% point be determined on the scoring sheet as if a pairs event was in place, in terms of total points, and integrate that score in the scoring sheet. My two bits here... With 60% you get 60% of the "mps" available, thus beating 60% of the pairs and losing to 40%. At imps, you would get +3. At cross imps, get +3 * 13 comparisons * (60 - 40)% (you win against 60%, loose against 40%, so your net win is 20% of the field). Rui Lopes Marques From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 12:33:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:33:43 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00516 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:33:35 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.94] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zJTur-0007S4-00; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:35:30 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bde1e3$df034080$4b2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:35:43 +0100 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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I reproduce below the text of an opinion that I was asked to give on the subject of this ruling. When I gave my opinion, I took into account all that I had read on BLML, where the matter had received some consideration. I am aware that my views are out of step - to a lesser or, in some cases, a very much greater extent - with the views expressed on the list. I would say this: First of all, if Dany Haimovici is serious on the subject of his "poll", I simply do not understand the arguments involved, no doubt through my own fault. There is no question at all of "UI" as far as I am concerned, nor do I see how such a question could possibly arise. Second, my interpretation of what is meant in the Laws by "could have known" appears at variance with many opinions expressed by BLML subscribers. As I hope I have made clear in what follows, there is no question in my mind that the player at the table did not act from nefarious motives; he opened 2D out of turn in all innocence, and when 1D was opened on his left, his action in overcalling 1H was equally innocent in that he was acting in accordance with his own highly imaginative approach to the game. But that is wholly irrelevant in terms of what the Laws at present require. Eric Landau's view that "could have known" is "French for 'did know, but we don't want to accuse him of acting on that basis'", appears to me singularly unhelpful. The Laws, rightly, are not concerned with what a player did or did not actually know. They are concerned with what a player actually did, and with whether the action taken could have been taken by an out-and-out villain. If it could, it is rightly subject to the most severe penalty that the Laws will permit. In that context, read on (or not, as you prefer). I have been asked for my views on an appeal which arose in the joint EBU/BBL Junior Trials recently. I was sent a hand that looked “something like”: x xxxxxx x AKQxx Kxx AQx AKx QJxx Qxxx AKJxx xxx x Jxxxxx - xxx Jxxx East was the dealer, the vulnerability is not quoted. South opened 2D (Multi) out of turn. This call was not accepted, and the bidding reverted to East, who opened 1D. South overcalled 1H and (with North silenced), East-West bid competently to 6D. South led a club, won by North. East, believing that South had a heart suit, now chose to ban a spade return, since in his view a spade ruff by South represented the only danger to his contract. While North was pondering his return, East unfortunately claimed, whereupon North gave South a heart ruff for one down. The ruling given on appeal was apparently based on “the Proprieties” – that is, as far as I can determine, Law 72B1 was used as a basis for score adjustment. East-West were given some percentage of 6D making and some percentage of 6D one down. I do not know whether North-South were given the same or a less favourable adjustment. The question is: was this ruling justified? In order to adjust the score under Law 72B1, the Appeals Committee must determine whether the South player could have known, at the time he opened 2D out of turn, that this infraction would be “likely” to damage the non-offending side. Had the Appeals Committee wished, they might also have considered Law 23 and asked themselves whether South could have known, at the time he opened 2D, that his partner’s enforced silence during the subsequent auction could result in damage to East-West. I do not believe that such a consideration would have been appropriate, but it was an avenue open to the Committee. It is perfectly clear that in this case, there was no question that South had acted with nefarious intent; his opening bid out of turn was a genuine error, and there is no suggestion that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with impunity in the later auction. However, the legal question in such cases is never: what was South’s actual intent? Rather, the question is: could a South bent on wrong-doing have acted in the way that the actual South player did? In my view, the answer to this question is clearly “Yes”. When an imaginative player picks up that South hand, various tactical possibilities are likely to occur to him. Among them may very well be the option of making an ostensibly natural bid in hearts, in order to talk the opponents out of a high-level contract in that denomination. Of course, there is no guarantee that such an approach will succeed – after all, an enemy heart contract may well be destined to fail due to a bad trump break, or North might carry the bidding to a dangerously high level before South can convince his partner that hearts is not a viable trump suit for his own side. Furthermore, North may perpetrate an injudicious double of an enemy contract on the basis of the values announced by his partner. With partner silenced, the first of those risks is as present as it ever was, but the other two have been eliminated. In short, a South player who wants to bid hearts on such a hand is well advised to make sure that his partner’s contributions to the subsequent auction are minimised. Thus, a likely strategy for a villainous South might well be to do exactly what this South did – open out of turn with a bid that is ambiguous as to the major suit held, then pretend to have a heart suit rather than a spade suit. His opening bid – innocent though it undoubtedly was in the actual case – is in my view subject to potential adjustment under Law 72B1 in view of his subsequent action. It seems clear that South could have known, a priori, that opening 2D might enable him later to misrepresent his hand to the opponents without the risks attendant upon misrepresenting it to his partner. The next question is: were the opponents in fact damaged by South’s actions? If not, then although a disciplinary penalty on North-South might be considered appropriate by a Director or Appeals Committee, there is no reason to adjust the score from that obtained at the table. In my view, a severe disciplinary penalty would have been applicable in the actual case regardless of score adjustment; South’s actions strike me as wholly reprehensible. I do not consider that they are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may “appropriately” attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play – such deception as South practised does not begin to come under the category of “appropriate” as far as I am concerned. Although it was not remotely possible that South could have envisaged the way in which his behaviour would actually benefit his side as matters turned out, it was entirely possible for South to envisage this possibility: if I bid hearts (pretending to have five or six of them, since I have opened a Multi), then my opponents will not play in the suit; if they play in some other suit and North obtains the lead, a heart play may very well be beneficial to our side. Again, a villainous South could very well have had this in mind when selecting his course of action. Declarer’s play – or lack of play – on the actual hand was entirely reasonable given the information at his disposal; had the Laws enabled him to require a heart lead from North as opposed to forbidding the lead of a suit, he would certainly have done this, which is exactly the outcome for which South would have hoped. Had South passed “throughout”, it is not conceivable that declarer would have attempted to claim his contract at trick two; his “misplay” in so doing was a direct consequence of South’s behaviour following the infraction. It is therefore my view that the Appeals Committee should have acted thus: North-South receive the score for 6D making, the most unfavourable of at all probable outcomes had South not committed an infraction against Law 72B1. East-West also receive the score for 6D making, the most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred. North-South are severely fined for South’s actions, which were wholly incompatible with fair play. David Burn 11th September 1998 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 12:37:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:37:17 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA00533 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:37:11 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5EMLa05092; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:38:12 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d0b519c.36007614@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:38:12 EDT To: timg@maine.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Two questions Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim, << "should this player's partner gain the lead while the penalty card is still exposed you will have some options." Is the declarer entitled to know what these options are? >> In a word, yes. This is not an aid to memory, however, but rather a detailing of certain rights declarer has obtained in the course of play. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 13:25:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:25:20 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00649 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:25:15 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn22p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.27.155]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01574 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:28:20 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:28:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809170328.NAA01574@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:35 AM 17/09/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: snip > I do not consider that they >are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may >=93appropriately=94 attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or >play =96 such deception as South practised does not begin to come under >the category of =93appropriate=94 as far as I am concerned. I agree with this. UI doesn't come into it. I have always entertained grave doubts about the ethics of the bid, and am glad someone else has raised the issue. Tony=20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 14:03:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:03:41 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00764 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:03:36 +1000 Received: from PENTIUM (cc.southcom.com.au [203.60.16.155]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17000 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:06:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980917135827.0093b280@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:58:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Law 40E Powers In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19980916124128.00808430@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>I play an old-fahsioned natural system which includes four-card majors. I >>have frequently been asked to leave a table on OKbridge because I was >>playing 'unusual' methods ('unfamiliar,' 'exotic,' and 'custom' have also >>been used to descibe the system in prelude to asking me to leave). What do >>you suppose a written defense to four-card majors would contain? >> >>Tim > >The poor diddumses. Come and play at my table :) I play a weirdo system including some transfer opening bids on OKbridge, and we make this known when advertising for opponents, and before they sit advise them of this, provide an accurate convention card, a suggested defence and a partridge in a pear tree. Amusingly more than a few opponents have run away during our first relay auction with statement of "we shouldn't **have** to play against illegal/ridiculous/weird systems like this" and one even threatened to write to OKbridge to get us banned... some people you can't please! Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 15:10:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:10:31 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00970 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:10:27 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn22p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.27.155]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14671 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:13:32 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:13:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809170513.PAA14671@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Law 40E Powers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:58 PM 17/09/98 +1000, Mark wrote: > play a weirdo system including some transfer opening bids on OKbridge, >and we make this known when advertising for opponents, and before they sit >advise them of this, provide an accurate convention card, a suggested >defence and a partridge in a pear tree. Amusingly more than a few opponents >have run away during our first relay auction with statement of "we >shouldn't **have** to play against illegal/ridiculous/weird systems like >this" and one even threatened to write to OKbridge to get us banned... some >people you can't please! I have heard the opinion expressed that one reason for the popularity of on-line bridge, particularly among Americans, is the lack of ACBL control. We are warned against allowing the game to go the same way as over there lest the duplicate clubs "die". Mark may be doing the clubs a service by forcing the players back. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 16:13:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:13:17 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (ZdiVC5M3z6d+DGFeO2d1LTimELcbuiWC@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01077 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:13:10 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id CAA10696; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT/11C984292A00*@MHS> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:15:38 -0400 To: Ton Kooijman From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: open pairs lille Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the only >representative from their country we need the same number of rounds to >have all >meetings done. That doesn't sound right to me. Theoretical part: Certainly if there are N pairs from one country we need at a minimum N-1 rounds for them to all play against one another in any movement. In this movement, with the seeding that was used, 2(N-1) - 1 rounds were required for all the pairs from one country to play against one another. But players from more than one country can be playing their countrymen at the same time. Historical part, illustrating the theoretical part: The 18 US pairs were all scheduled to play one another between rounds 3 and 35. The 12 French pairs were all scheduled to play one another between rounds 4 and 24. Practical part: The 8 Polish pairs could have been scheduled to play one another between rounds 28 and 40, and perhaps earlier by someone who is more familiar with the movement than I. There were five countries which had two pairs in the finals. They can't be a problem, since we can arrange for them to play almost any round, perhaps the first round to make things easy. That leaves 13 (61 - (18+12+8+5(2))) pairs from countries with more than two and fewer than eight pairs - it can't be too difficult to place them, though I'm happy not to be the one with the job! AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 16:13:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:13:15 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (GpWKQGom0gx1sKfsEmVPAyRvfG1E4AJW@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01076 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:13:08 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id CAA10690; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT/11C984292A00*@MHS> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:15:24 -0400 To: Ton Kooijman From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: open pairs lille Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 AM -0400 9/16/98, KOOYMAN wrote: >I asked information about the pairnumbers to be able to answer the questions >regarding the pairing in later rounds. If participation from countries is too >heavy (too many players from too few countries) this movement makes it >impossible to avoid late play. My instructions where to do it in such a way >that play between pairs from the same country took place as soon as possible. >Looking at the movement you can tell how to number the pairs to get this >result. But some countries have to meet early and some later, unless you make >the choice to spread the problem evenly over all countries, which means that >pairs from all countries meet each other till late in the championship. I did >not make that choice. I asked the scoring room after finishing the job whether >they checked the outcome and they assured me it was ok. Not going into details >I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the only >representative from their country we need the same number of rounds to >have all >meetings done. Going through the data now my conclusion is that the Polish >pairs could have been given better numbers, and I don't understand why they >didn't. Thanks for looking into it, Ton! I suspect that part of this is not clear because Ton was responding to a private note I sent him last week. Here's the relevant part. I'll be happy to send a copy of the spreadsheet I mention to anyone who'd like one. ---------- I put together a spreadsheet describing the Open Pairs movement, so that I could figure out who I had played against each round. It also let me find out when pairs from each country had played against each other, so that I could answer a question posted on the BLML. The best represented countries were the USA and France, and sure enough by the end of the second session they had all played against one another. Good work on someones part! The third best represented country was Poland, with eight pairs in the final. It looks as though an effort was made to seed them as well, but one way or another it backfired. Without exception the Polish pairs all played against one another during the last session. This seems a shameful outcome, not on the part of the Poles who had no choice but to sit where they were told, but on the part of the WBF. ---------- I realize now that I should have said that "Without exception the Polish pairs were all scheduled to play against one another during the last session." My spreadsheet describes the movement that was scheduled to be played, not the one that was actually played, because of the errors on two guide cards. There's no difference after the first half of the first session, when the problem was corrected. It's possible that, due to the problem with the guide cards, some Polish pairs played one another during the first half of the first session, and then received sitouts for the rounds when they were scheduled to play during the last session. I also wrote "round" where I meant "session". I've corrected it in my quote above - Ton, I expect you figured out what I meant. I was also wrong about when the US pairs finished playing. The last US-US matchup was in round 35, the seventh round of the third session. AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 17:16:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:16:30 +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 ESMTP id RAA01242 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:16:22 +1000 Received: from [194.222.115.176] (helo=coruncanius.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJYLc-0006oU-00; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:19:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:04:45 +0100 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980916174448.007282a8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980916174448.007282a8@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 12:15 PM 9/16/98 -0700, Jan wrote: >>Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> Speaking of rewriting history... Please note the difference between >>> "could claim" and "did claim." >> >Indeed they could! Moreover, the lack of procedural definition allows them >to dodge the question entirely. They can fully satisfy the requirements of >L12C3 merely by stating that the final score adjustment was deemed to "do >equity". See Herman's defense of Lille #35. > Labeo: It is not the law which allows it, it is the lack of parental guidance. This aspect should be a feature of the regulations. What is not easily known is whether the opinion from ACBL members that we see on BLML is representative of a *minority* that feels the ACBL does not cater for them. If not it is very hard to understand why the 'problem' persists since you would think that the majority would get their way in the end. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 17:43:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:43:34 +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 RAA01402 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:43:28 +1000 Received: from modem76.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.204] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zJYlp-0005jk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:46:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:43:17 +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: 8bit 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: Tony Musgrove To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: 17 September 1998 04:28 At 03:35 AM 17/09/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: snip > I do not consider that they >are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may >“appropriately” attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or >play – such deception as South practised does not begin to come under >the category of “appropriate” as far as I am concerned. I agree with this. UI doesn't come into it. I have always entertained grave doubts about the ethics of the bid, and am glad someone else has raised the issue. ++++ I have read David and Tony with great interest. It appears to me: 1. At trick 2 there is no logical alternative to a Heart return in an auction where South has neither bid out of rotation nor psyched. 2. Whilst agreeing David's principle concerning 72B1 I find the application here very remote and unlikely, unless there is a history with the player. The ruling is possible but I would be reluctant to make it. 3. The question of Law 73E is one that an appeal committee should have addressed. However, I have my doubts about David's reading of the law; I think it intends to say " It is appropriate for a player to attempt...." rather than "A player is entitled to attempt ...... in an appropriate way". ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 18:14:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:14:09 +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 SAA01471 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:14:01 +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 JAA06617; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:16:49 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00768; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:16:13 +0100 Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id JAA21751; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:01:22 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 09:00:18 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 08:46:06 +0100 X400-Received: by mta feldr1 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 09:01:18 +0100 X400-Received: by mta POL0103 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 10:01:10 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 09:01:18 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 17 Sep 98 10:01:00 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 10:01:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G50021D66B5300000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <21718.407613790@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Importance: normal Subject: RE:Scoring at cross-imps Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson: > > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you > factor the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams > event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? > Is it meaningful if you don't? > > Anything else? > The best solution is to divide each result by number of comparisons. No problem for computer, results are "realistic" and +3/-3 is OK as A+/A-. 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 Thu Sep 17 19:50:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:50:01 +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 ESMTP id TAA01703 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:49:54 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJakC-0004RR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:52:56 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Scoring at cross-imps Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:24:06 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor > the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams > event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? > Is > it meaningful if you don't? > > Anything else? > > ############ When a board is unplayable, I factor up all other > scores in a linear fashion. Av+ and Av- are also defined in the EBU > Supplement as being SquareRoot(8X) where X is the number of times that > the board is played and this is rounded up to the nearest whole > integer. Thus, in your example, Av+ and Av- would be +11 imps and -11 > imps respectively. I do not believe that it matters whether you > divide the scores or not unless you want to compare performances > between events in which case dividing each score by the number of > comparisons makes sense. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 20:46:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:32 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01859 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:26 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20624 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3600E211.5DD3DF0B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:18:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3606a441.3988725@post12.tele.dk> <36002086.BE420B94@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > Some members feel 4H is not likely but somewhat probable. They would be > forced to rule NS -620, EW +170. > Others feel 4H is quite likely. They are forced to rule NS -620, EW > +620. > In either case NS gets -620 so that seems "equitable" to this AC. > Rather than forcing either EW +620 or +170 by majority or whatever(noone > in the two groups is very adamant in their judgements), wouldn't most > involved (including the players) feel equity is served if AC can go to > L12C3 and give EW a score somewhere inbetween? No I don't. Since some members find +620 probable, they put it at , say 10%. Other members find it probable, but they put it at no more than 30%. So in fact a consensus would be giving it 20% likelyhood. So an adjustment would be 80%(+170) + 20%(+620). Not some 50/50 thing ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 20:46:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:24 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01852 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:18 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20555 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:49:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3600E140.F9A5EFC0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:15:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809161705.MAA23502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > Is it common practice to consider a player's peers to be only > those people who would have taken the exact same action as that player did > under the circumstances? Or is it common to consider his peers to be > those people with comparable experience and system? > I don't think it is right to consider a player's peers at all! I think we should be looking for the percentage in "time". How often would _this_ player, in this situation, choose A, or B ? The fact that in order to determine this, we ask a few others, is only a method, it should never become the rule. Do remark however, that we can never really determine this percentage. Of course, if a player has chosen B, it is hard to say afterwards that he should have done this only 30% of the time. That is why we take recourse to "peers". I am in the process of putting this in a formula, and it seems to me that the discussion is not needed after all. In my current version of the formula, there is no difference between a player chosing a 30% line in stead of a 31% (with correct info), as against a difference between 70% and 71%. Only the 1% difference is of importance. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 20:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:49 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01880 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:46:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20676 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:49:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3600E571.366D0476@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:33:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps 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: > > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > Compare 13 times, add, divide by 14. (I have shown why - see my pages) > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor > the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > Compare 12 times, add one +3 or -3, divide by 14. > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams > event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > 3 IMPs to the total after all divisions by 14. > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? Is > it meaningful if you don't? > I would suggest keeping the IMPs per board, adding them all, so showing a result like +39.1 after 26 boards = +1.5 IMPS per board. Alternatively, you might translate +39.1 by the 26-board VP table into (say) 21.6 VP. > Anything else? > Yse, please ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 21:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:05:32 +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 VAA01955 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:05:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA04125 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:07:55 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:07:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Quick question (+long story) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quick question (which I couldn't find in the RTFLB yesterday with 6 angry players around me): suppose a player discovers that the explanation and the actual hand are inconsistent and he suspects misinformation, until what time can he call the TD and ask for a ruling? This happened to me last night: EW finish board 27, declarer is a bit puzzled why he suddenly went down but decides to play board 28. When comparing scores, he suddenly realized that NS had announced that they led 2nd/4th best (that includs: lower from 2 small, top/middle from 3 small) both on the initial lead and later on in the play, but that on the same hand they had actually led 6 from 65 and 8 from 85. Declarer now calls the TD. Is this on time? To make matters more complicated, NS have meanwhile left the building (without checking if the opponents agreed with the score or signing the result form). 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 Mobile: +31.6.55861746 NOTE NEW NUMBER! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 21:41:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:41:09 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02026 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:41:03 +1000 Received: from default (client088b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.139]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA07052; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:44:05 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:46:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde230$dd5848a0$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; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:56:52 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.245] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zJci1-0001KO-00; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:58:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bde232$77207560$8e2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:57:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ I have read David and Tony with great interest. It appears to >me: > 1. At trick 2 there is no logical alternative to a Heart > return in an auction where South has neither bid > out of rotation nor psyched. Well, it is barely possible that a North who has just won the first trick against a slam with one of his CAKQ might logically consider trying to cash another one. The problem arose not because North returned a heart in actual play, but because East, believing that South had hearts as a result of his shenanigans, (a) banned a spade lead and (b) claimed. Without the infraction, he would have done neither, and there is at least a reasonable chance that the contract would therefore have made. (Ob Question: is the information that East has banned a spade lead rather than a club lead "authorised" to North, in that he now knows that a second club will not cash? The answer to this is not, I venture to suggest, as obvious as your first reaction might indicate.) > 2. Whilst agreeing David's principle concerning > 72B1 I find the application here very remote > and unlikely, unless there is a history with > the player. The ruling is possible but I would > be reluctant to make it. As I have tried to point out, the intentions, or history, of this particular South player do not matter. It is not at all unlikely that a player who wanted to bid 1H with that South hand would do all in his power to ensure that his partner could take no part in the subsequent proceedings. You may tell me that nobody *would* actually cheat in that fashion, but that is not relevant; all that matters is that somebody *could*. > 3. The question of Law 73E is one that an appeal > committee should have addressed. However, I > have my doubts about David's reading of the > law; I think it intends to say " It is appropriate > for a player to attempt...." rather than "A player > is entitled to attempt ...... in an appropriate way". I have no quarrel with the intent. I hope that the words may be changed accordingly in the next revision, for that is not what they say at the moment. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 22:04:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:04:50 +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 WAA02138 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:04:44 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA09362 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:07:15 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:07:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: KOOYMAN Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: open pairs lille In-Reply-To: <1844411616091998/A36137/EXPERT/11C984292A00*@MHS> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, KOOYMAN wrote: > I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the only > representative from their country we need the same number of rounds to have all > meetings done. That should be 60, not 61, as you don't play against yourself. But this number is irrelevant :-) What you want to accomplish is that all pairs from the same country meet eachother early on in the event. You don't care whether meetings between the pairs later on in the event, are between players from countries with one representative or with more representatives. I'd think that the solution would be to divide the field into 4 groups of 18 pairs each. All pairs from the same NCBO are put in the same group. In the first session, you have all groups play a 9 table Howell. This is followed by 3 Mitchell sessions. In each of those, one group plays against another group. Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need for a skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals. If you run the event this way, all the pairs from a single NCBO meet in the first session. If you have more than 18 pairs from a single NCBO, put them in 2 groups that meet in the Mitchell of round 2, creating a movement where 36 pairs (half the field) can represent one NCBO with no meetings between pairs from this NCBO after the first half of the event. 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 Mobile: +31.6.55861746 NOTE NEW NUMBER! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 22:19:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:19:25 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02188 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:19:19 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:22:21 +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 NAA09809 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:17:39 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <002f01bde1e3$df034080$4b2e63c3@david-burn> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:17:15 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > In my view, a severe disciplinary penalty would have been > applicable in the actual case regardless of score adjustment; Souths > actions strike me as wholly reprehensible. I do not consider that they > are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may > appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or > play  such deception as South practised does not begin to come under > the category of appropriate as far as I am concerned. First, I agree with Grattan that it is absolutely clear that the wording "a player may appropriately attempt ..." in L73E means "it is appropriate for a player to attempt ..." rather than "a player may attempt ..., so long as he does so appropriately". Otherwise it is more or less saying "you may act legally" without saying what is legal ... not a very useful law. Second, although I am agnostic on the question of whether the "could have known" clause applies here, a disciplinary penalty seems *incredibly* harsh. After all, in this forum a considerable number of contributers with a very keen sense of the ethical responsibilities of a bridge player didn't think anything illegal or unethical had been done, and many more were not sure. Even those who considered the action illegal didn't believe the player in question had known his action to be illegal or unethical. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 22:27:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:27:38 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02205 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:27:31 +1000 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id OAA12970 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:30:32 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from Con.Holzscherer@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with ESMTP id OAA23606 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:30:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv.sc.philips.com (everest [130.144.63.222]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id OAA29468; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:30:31 +0200 Message-ID: <360100E6.A06F3D6A@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:30:30 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Organization: Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (PS-SLE) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/819) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com Subject: Re: Quick question (+long story) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > Quick question (which I couldn't find in the RTFLB yesterday with 6 angry > players around me): suppose a player discovers that the explanation and > the actual hand are inconsistent and he suspects misinformation, until > what time can he call the TD and ask for a ruling? Law 92B: "The right to request [...] a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period." As far as I know, the Dutch Bridge league has not specified a different time period, so the 30 minutes applies. Whether a score adjustment is to be considered is an other matter. Perhaps you could refer to L11A or L79A. -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 22:54:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:54:11 +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 ESMTP id WAA02295 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:54:02 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJdcN-0007VP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:57:04 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:38:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:38:17 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, KOOYMAN wrote: > > > I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the > only > > representative from their country we need the same number of rounds > to have all > > meetings done. > > That should be 60, not 61, as you don't play against yourself. But > this > number is irrelevant :-) > > What you want to accomplish is that all pairs from the same country > meet > eachother early on in the event. You don't care whether meetings > between > the pairs later on in the event, are between players from countries > with > one representative or with more representatives. > > I'd think that the solution would be to divide the field into 4 groups > of > 18 pairs each. All pairs from the same NCBO are put in the same > group. In > the first session, you have all groups play a 9 table Howell. This is > followed by 3 Mitchell sessions. In each of those, one group plays > against another group. > > Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need for a > skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals. > > If you run the event this way, all the pairs from a single NCBO meet > in > the first session. If you have more than 18 pairs from a single NCBO, > put > them in 2 groups that meet in the Mitchell of round 2, creating a > movement > where 36 pairs (half the field) can represent one NCBO with no > meetings > between pairs from this NCBO after the first half of the event. > > > ######### But this would create a movement with poor balance and would > also still be open to abuse when the leaders have their fellow country > playing in their line during the final session. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 22:54:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:54:11 +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 ESMTP id WAA02294 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:54:02 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJdcM-0007VP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:57:02 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:32:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:32:02 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > In my view, a severe disciplinary penalty would have been > > applicable in the actual case regardless of score adjustment; > Souths > > actions strike me as wholly reprehensible. I do not consider that > they > > are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may > > appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or > > play  such deception as South practised does not begin to come > under > > the category of appropriate as far as I am concerned. > > First, I agree with Grattan that it is absolutely clear that the > wording "a player may appropriately attempt ..." in L73E means > "it is appropriate for a player to attempt ..." rather than "a > player may attempt ..., so long as he does so appropriately". > Otherwise it is more or less saying "you may act legally" without > saying what is legal ... not a very useful law. > > Second, although I am agnostic on the question of whether the "could > have known" clause applies here, a disciplinary penalty seems > *incredibly* harsh. After all, in this forum a considerable number of > contributers with a very keen sense of the ethical responsibilities of > a > bridge player didn't think anything illegal or unethical had been > done, and many more were not sure. Even those who considered the > action > illegal didn't believe the player in question had known his action to > be illegal or unethical. > > ########## I too think that a disciplinary penalty is totally > inappropriate. Perhaps DB might have meant a PPf or PPw but, frankly, > unless there is clear and overwhelming evidence that the player did > commit the infraction *knowingly and intentionally*, eg. the player > admits to this, then I think that it is a highly dangerous course to > take and one that is likely to lead to a defamation of character court > case. It seems to me that it is far better to stick to an objective > 'player could have known' criterion and simply adjust the score as we > do in UI cases and also record the hand for the L&E. This way, no-one > need be accused of any deliberate cheating or breach of ethics, the > NOs are fully protected and the one in million case of the deliberate > cheat can be dealt with by the L&E when repeated instances are > reported and the pattern spotted. ############## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 23:32:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:32:29 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02421 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:32:23 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA276629326; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:35:26 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA164079325; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:35:25 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:35:14 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Cue bid conventional? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To my previous message > =20 > Playing " inverted majors " ie single raise forcing and short suit try : > =20 > 1S - P - 2S(1) - P > 3C(2) -P - ..3D(3)=85 > =20 > (1) 2S is alerted as forcing, good fit, 9+ HPC > (2) 3C is alerted as a short suit (singleton or void) > (3) 3D shows DA and ask partner to cue bid his controls > =20 > I have always alerted 3D and explain when required as DA. > If I understand 3 as above, I will no more alert 3D because > it is not a convention " strictu sensus "?? > Or continue to alert as a treatment? > =20 Marvin French wrote =20 Not a convention. Alert 3D anyway, because the meaning of the bid is so specific and might not be expected by the opponents. The fact that it asks partner to cue bid his controls is a secondary meaning that is a derivative of the primary meaning, not something new. If you had written, "3D shows DA and our agreement is that he should now likewise show controls," which is identical in meaning, surely no one would consider that the statement makes 3D a convention. =20 ACBL policy seems to be aimed at Alerting unexpected meanings of calls, and not Alerting expected meanings, regardless of whether a call is a convention or not. The ACBL Alert Regulation is rather inconsistent in applying this policy. =20 The full 16 pages of the ACBL Alert Regulation are viewable and downloadable from the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org) "Library." A complete summary is available from me for the asking, either a two-page .txt file or a one-page WordPerfect 6.0 .wpd file. =20 Thx I know very well ACBL Alert Regulation and its inconsistencies (including the marvelous delayed alerts=85.), having published many articles on alerts in a local bridge bulletin. I was just surprised to know that 3D in this= sequence is not a " convention " according to the above definition. Can I call this a treatment (I understood that a treatment is an agreement on number of cards or HPC promised by a natural bid) ? If not, what is the correct term I should use when teaching such an agreement? Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 23:49:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:49:10 +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 XAA02481 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:49:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA06250; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:51:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006233; Thu Sep 17 08:51:24 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE21E.205CF0A0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:32:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE21E.205CF0A0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws discussion group , "'Linda Weinstein'" Subject: RE: Appeals at Lille Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:47:46 -0400 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is there any chance of having this become the de facto standard at lower levels, at least at gold point events at regionals? Could some "recommendations" at least be made to the districts (or SOs like MidAtlantic) to follow such a procedure? Well over half of the membership may play in an NABC less frequently than once every five years...but they deserve consistent and accurate decisions from AC's also. By recording appeals and keeping a watch on AC decisions by review all can learn to render better decisions (and perhaps some frivilous appeals can be avoided with better screening and education). ---------- From: Linda Weinstein[SMTP:lobo@ac.net] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:45 PM To: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille > >> In the EBU any appeal that is heard is recorded on an Appeal Form. >> These are collected and scrutinised... > >An admirable system. I wish we had something like it here. > We do at NABCs. An appeals form is filled out for each and every appeal. Each Committee Chairman must write a report that appears in a future Casebook. Rich and I scrutinize these very carefully and resolve any problems with the appropriate Committee Chairman. The Directors are getting more and more diligent about correctly filling them out. I have several very fat notebooks from the last 8 NABCs. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 23:49:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:49:43 +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 XAA02495 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:49:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA02786 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:52:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002755; Thu Sep 17 08:51:39 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE220.86FCFEC0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:49:56 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE220.86FCFEC0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: BLML Subject: RE: Appeals at Lille Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:19:17 -0400 Encoding: 87 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Grattan Endicott[SMTP:gester@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 12:37 PM To: David Stevenson; BLML Subject: Re: Appeals at Lille Grattan Endicott It is certainly a modern idea that authority is not trusted. Perhaps >it is the effect of the media, or changing times, or something else. >What seems to have been missed is that it is often unhelpful. It may be >fun to try and chase Clinton from office for the sort of sexual lying >that three-quarters of his critics have indulged in at some time, but it >is not good for the USA. However, people will do it. ++ Not only his critics but numbers of earlier Presidents, British Royalty, great artists, human beings all...... If they are good at their jobs who cares ? ++ It is far from fun, but people must seek to remove confessed liars and cheats from positions of authority in which trust plays a significant role. B.J. Clinton has blown his chance at being a president. A perjurer who has also acted to suborn perjury from his associates and to obstruct justice is not a suitable person to hold that office. Whether he is good at his job is open to serious question, but that is a political argument once the moral unfitness is exempted. To answer your question "Who cares?": Anyone with morals who hopes to train up the next generation to have them. His moral example is atrocious (and the lying under oath is more serious than the sex). How does one instill honesty and decency in one's children when they can say the president gets away with it? His removal would most certainly be good for the USA. And that is why people will do it. You may be able to tolerate a crown prince whose affairs are despicable, but I know there are many in your nation who would hope for abdication. We hope for resignation but are resigned to impeachment if necessary. To tie this to bridge, would you really want a Sion or a Ma on your appeals committee? There are ethical violations great enough to warrant suspension or even permanent removal from our sport. If R&S had been found guilty as charged (which I hasten to note they were NOT, being instead exonerated at least in your part of the world), you would hardly expect the EBU to have still another heart place them in charge now would you. If BW were ruling unilaterally for active cheating (he is NOT) rather than for active ethics he would be hounded out of bridge. Does profiting from UI because everyone does it make it alright? Shall we all meet in the men's room henceforth? Is a peek really to be worth 2 finesses? Shall we wink at varying the call from pass to no bid to show greater or less than 7 hcp? Should we hesitate over singletons and consistently revoke on trick 12? How about using the stop card only on a strong jump? Choose your own reductio ad absurdum. Lying and cheating do matter and must be dealt with and hopefully prevented. I realise we have had some disrespect for authority over here ever since some one tried to tax our tea too dearly. We have deliberately set up cheques and balances in our government to avoid much of the potential for the abuse of power. This makes us no more paranoid than the man who IS being followed. :-) > This leaves the question of Appeal 23 in Lille. The WBF is in a >strange anomalous position of finding it very difficult to control its >TDs and ACs and other tournament staff very well in its own >competitions. It is easy to criticise them but have you considered >*how* to control them? If you think that Appeal 23 shows how you can >misuse the Law then that is your opinion: but it is nothing to do with >L12C3. It is just that you have an Appeal where the application of Law >was not done in a way that popular opinion deems to be right. However, >that should not affect opinions of what can be done by a National >organisation which should be able to apply a sensible level of control. > ++ Good law remains good only in good hands. Blame the plumber, not his tools. But exonerate the TDs who are only carrying out the instructions given them ++ The problem is how can one be certain that the law will be IN good hands. Intelligent constraint/limits on the powers of AC's appears prudent. That does not mean 12C3 is necessarilty bad in concept, but it should be more carefully worded and/or limited in the scope of its applicability by regulation. Failing that, the ACBL has done well to opt out. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 17 23:54:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:54:39 +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 XAA02530 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:54:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA22142 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:56:51 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:56:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, David Martin wrote: > Henk wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, KOOYMAN wrote: > > > > > I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being the > > only > > > representative from their country we need the same number of rounds > > to have all > > > meetings done. > > > > That should be 60, not 61, as you don't play against yourself. But > > this > > number is irrelevant :-) > > > > What you want to accomplish is that all pairs from the same country > > meet > > eachother early on in the event. You don't care whether meetings > > between > > the pairs later on in the event, are between players from countries > > with > > one representative or with more representatives. > > > > I'd think that the solution would be to divide the field into 4 groups > > of > > 18 pairs each. All pairs from the same NCBO are put in the same > > group. In > > the first session, you have all groups play a 9 table Howell. This is > > followed by 3 Mitchell sessions. In each of those, one group plays > > against another group. > > > > Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need for a > > skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals. > > > > If you run the event this way, all the pairs from a single NCBO meet > > in > > the first session. If you have more than 18 pairs from a single NCBO, > > put > > them in 2 groups that meet in the Mitchell of round 2, creating a > > movement > > where 36 pairs (half the field) can represent one NCBO with no > > meetings > > between pairs from this NCBO after the first half of the event. > > > > > > ######### But this would create a movement with poor balance and would It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance. > > also still be open to abuse when the leaders have their fellow country > > playing in their line during the final session. ############ I don't see why this movement is unique in that respect. If a pair wants to help another pair, all they have to do is to look at their guide-cards to see in which rounds they should try to produce a bad result. And the effect of all this is a lot less than creating a bad result in a head to head encounter. Head to head, a top is a top. Playing in the same direction, a bottom means only 1 matchpoint on a 35 top to the leaders. And, on average, half of the time the other pairs in the top X of the field, will also get that matchpoint. In fact, if you'd intentionally try to score -7600 on every board in the 71xN boards final, AND you were sitting in the same direction as the pair that you want to help all the time, then this translates to half a board over the entire event (71N boards, or about 0.7%). OTOH, intentionally scoring a 0 on the board in the direct encounter, is already a 1.4% effect. 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 Mobile: +31.6.55861746 NOTE NEW NUMBER! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 00:25:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:25:56 +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 ESMTP id AAA04859 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:25:48 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJf3E-0001ZX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:28:52 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:08:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:08:06 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry Henk but I missed a bit out of my last reply. SNIP > It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance. > > ######### It is not as easy as one might imagine to produce the sort > of balance in a scrambled Mitchell that a properly constructed stanza > Howell is capable of. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 00:25:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:25:55 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04858 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:25:48 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJf3C-0001ZX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:28:51 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:04:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:04:06 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) [SMTP:henk@ripe.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 2:57 PM > To: David Martin > Cc: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: RE: open pairs lille > > On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, David Martin wrote: > > > Henk wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, KOOYMAN wrote: > > > > > > > I can say that when there are 61 pairs (the case here) not being > the > > > only > > > > representative from their country we need the same number of > rounds > > > to have all > > > > meetings done. > > > > > > That should be 60, not 61, as you don't play against yourself. > But > > > this > > > number is irrelevant :-) > > > > > > What you want to accomplish is that all pairs from the same > country > > > meet > > > eachother early on in the event. You don't care whether meetings > > > between > > > the pairs later on in the event, are between players from > countries > > > with > > > one representative or with more representatives. > > > > > > I'd think that the solution would be to divide the field into 4 > groups > > > of > > > 18 pairs each. All pairs from the same NCBO are put in the same > > > group. In > > > the first session, you have all groups play a 9 table Howell. > This is > > > followed by 3 Mitchell sessions. In each of those, one group > plays > > > against another group. > > > > > > Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need > for a > > > skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals. > > > > > > If you run the event this way, all the pairs from a single NCBO > meet > > > in > > > the first session. If you have more than 18 pairs from a single > NCBO, > > > put > > > them in 2 groups that meet in the Mitchell of round 2, creating a > > > movement > > > where 36 pairs (half the field) can represent one NCBO with no > > > meetings > > > between pairs from this NCBO after the first half of the event. > > > > > > > > > ######### But this would create a movement with poor balance and > would > > It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance. > > > > also still be open to abuse when the leaders have their fellow > country > > > playing in their line during the final session. ############ > > I don't see why this movement is unique in that respect. If a pair > wants > to help another pair, all they have to do is to look at their > guide-cards > to see in which rounds they should try to produce a bad result. > > And the effect of all this is a lot less than creating a bad result in > a > head to head encounter. Head to head, a top is a top. Playing in the > same direction, a bottom means only 1 matchpoint on a 35 top to the > leaders. And, on average, half of the time the other pairs in the top > X > of the field, will also get that matchpoint. > > In fact, if you'd intentionally try to score -7600 on every board in > the > 71xN boards final, AND you were sitting in the same direction as the > pair > that you want to help all the time, then this translates to half a > board > over the entire event (71N boards, or about 0.7%). OTOH, > intentionally > scoring a 0 on the board in the direct encounter, is already a 1.4% > effect. > > > ########## Agreed but you now have several countrymen in the same > line so the effect can be multiplied up. But forgetting such > nefarious issues, the balance is still much worse than a Howell as, in > an ideal world and ignoring the head-to-head boards, you should play > half of the remaining boards in the same direction as any given pair > and the other half in opposite directions. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 00:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:47:27 +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 AAA04937 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:47:19 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h6.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA06323; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:50:20 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3601BC6B.42D8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:50:35 -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: Psyche when partner is silenced References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_4.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_4.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Dany wrote: "I ask all of you please - if you agree with this opinion . Please send me your very short answer : PSYCHE or UI." At the beginning of my post I'd like to underline that I agree with last D.Burn's post almost in full. I would even not send my post - but I spent too much time and work for its preparing... A most of infractions are made "with good faith", as result of an ordinary human reactions. That's why a most of laws are devoted to such an infraction - with direct and rather simple wording. And L72A5 : "LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws 5. Offenders' Options Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction" - has to do with these infractions only. And there happens case that are not ruled by this law - see below. There is another group of infractions - planned in advance, deliberately. None of such an infraction is ruled by the Laws - exempt L72B2 "LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES B. Infraction of Law 2. Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay" Moreover, these infractions constitute problems for disciplinary hearing. And there is not too small group of infractions that are ruled by rather special laws - their wording includes some modal verbs or expressions, such as "could", "might" etc. Their reason lies in the very base of bridge, because it is almost unprotected game (I wrote it in another thread). That's why our founders tried to protect the game of bridge in several kinds of infractions where there is no evidences of intentional player's doing (and moreover - usually there may not be any intentions) but consequences of the infractions are too hard for the very essence of bridge. In such a case nobody is accused - but result usually is adjusted. For aims of protecting the very essence of bridge. Such a case is under L72B1 and L23: "LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." "LAW 23 - DAMAGING ENFORCED PASS Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions. When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score. (See Law 72B1.)" So, I wrote: "when you have strong hand and make BOOT (or another irregularity) the rough estimate of odds that your partner has enough strength (for premium contract) is 1:2 against you; that's why your aggressive bid (as 3nt) with your silent partner may be wrong approximately in 2 cases per 3; you are going to pay for your risky decision (bid at high level); when you have weak hand and make BOOT (or another irregularity) the same estimate of odds is 2:1 for you; that's why your aggressive (psychic) bid (with silent partner) at low level may be for your profit in 2 cases per 3; you are not going to pay, the bid is unrisky" It was argued: "This would be true if you *KNOW* RHO will open 1D, but you didn't" And this argument is wrong because of: when one has 2 points it is not too hard to imagine that other 38 points may be divided between three other players with 13 points per each (on the average). That provides to high possibility of opponent's premium contract and to high possibility of opponent's opening bid. One did not know that RHO would open 1Diamond, but one might expect that RHO would open with at least 1-level-bid. Moreover, L72B1 says about "to damage the NOS" - and no word about bids, plays etc. And all this conclusion MIGHT be made in before infraction. That's why with weak hand you COULD know that you infraction might be profitable to you. It is David's (DWS) idea - as I see it. And I agree with it. One point more - after BOOT (partner became silent) the only aim of 1Heart bid was to make pressure on the opponents. With combination of BOOT it is infraction, described in L73F2 "LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)" That's why my opinion: there were neither Psyche nor UI. It was just infraction that might influence onto result - violation of Properties. And it consisted on enforcing partner's pass with following making pressure on opponents by mean of unrisky bid. No accusation, there was an infraction - and result should be adjusted in accordance with L23 and L72B1. The Laws... 6 Diamonds, just made for both sides (in accordance with L12C2). But I'd like to warn this very player about serious breach of Properties and make remark in my TD note-book. If similar case is repeated - I will insist on disciplinary hearing. At the end I'd like to remind the deal that happened in the 30-th, in rubber play - afterwards similar cases were described several times in different articles and books, it became part of the Legend (I was told by my teacher that it happened in prestigious rubber club in Warsaw before WW-2).. Your hand - nt distribution, no honours, fourth seat, red against white. You opened (OOT) 2nt (natural of course, end of 30-th). The summoned club manager ruled: your bid is cancelled, your partner will silent. Then: LHO with normal opening strength (in modern style - about 15 points) decided to pass with expectation to defence against your 3nt bid. It happened that RHO made the same decision. And then, after three passes your said that you changed your mind and decided to pass. There were neither numerical laws nor prepared TDs. But there were the Legend and clear understanding about what was acceptable and what - was not. It was your last game in all rubber clubs in Warsaw... Best wishes Vitold P.S. Be so kind to explain me what is it "3 Strikes Law"? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:07:11 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04991 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:07:03 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA15883 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:05:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809171505.KAA15883@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:05:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras > > I am continuing to "think aloud" on this so apologize if my comments > seem a bit like "rumblings". > > In yet another effort to make L12C3 more appealing to ACBLers (since I > hate huge zonal differences) what about if L12C3 was limited to only > addressing "equity" as it relates to the criteria "likely" and > "probable" in L12C2? My main complaints with L12C3 have been that it makes L12C2 [which I happen to like, despite the difficulties that it causes] irrelevant, and it contains no limitations or instructions whatsoever regarding the AC's concept of 'equity'. Obviously, then, I would be very happy with any modification of the law or officially promulgated binding regulation that restricts C3 applications to the context of C2. -Grant cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:30:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:30:01 +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 ESMTP id BAA05055 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:29:55 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zJg30-0007Sk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:32:43 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:19:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another thought Henk! You said SNIP > "Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need for > a > skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals." > > AND > > "It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance." > > ########## If the event is barometer scored then arrow-switches > won't work at all as each board will be being played simultaneously in > the same round and not by different pairs in different rounds. > ############# From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:32:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:32:36 +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 BAA05095 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:32:29 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA14219 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:52:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809171452.JAA14219@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: Psyche when partner is silenced To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:52:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin > > Jeremy wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > In my view, a severe disciplinary penalty would have been > > > applicable in the actual case regardless of score adjustment; > > Souths > > > actions strike me as wholly reprehensible. I do not consider that > > they > > > are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may > > > appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or > > > play  such deception as South practised does not begin to come > > under > > > the category of appropriate as far as I am concerned. > > > > First, I agree with Grattan that it is absolutely clear that the > > wording "a player may appropriately attempt ..." in L73E means > > "it is appropriate for a player to attempt ..." rather than "a > > player may attempt ..., so long as he does so appropriately". > > Otherwise it is more or less saying "you may act legally" without > > saying what is legal ... not a very useful law. > > > > Second, although I am agnostic on the question of whether the "could > > have known" clause applies here, a disciplinary penalty seems > > *incredibly* harsh. After all, in this forum a considerable number of > > contributers with a very keen sense of the ethical responsibilities of > > a > > bridge player didn't think anything illegal or unethical had been > > done, and many more were not sure. Even those who considered the > > action > > illegal didn't believe the player in question had known his action to > > be illegal or unethical. > > > > ########## I too think that a disciplinary penalty is totally > > inappropriate. Perhaps DB might have meant a PPf or PPw but, frankly, > > unless there is clear and overwhelming evidence that the player did > > commit the infraction *knowingly and intentionally*, eg. the player > > admits to this, then I think that it is a highly dangerous course to > > take and one that is likely to lead to a defamation of character court I don't think that giving a PPf should lead to a defamation of character suit {well, maybe it would in the US}, and if David meant a C&E hearing, then there would be opportunity so that a fair defense could be made, with exoneration the likely result. But... > > case. It seems to me that it is far better to stick to an objective > > 'player could have known' criterion and simply adjust the score as we > > do in UI cases and also record the hand for the L&E. This way, no-one > > need be accused of any deliberate cheating or breach of ethics, the > > NOs are fully protected and the one in million case of the deliberate > > cheat can be dealt with by the L&E when repeated instances are > > reported and the pattern spotted. ############## > I agree completely. Although I have gone on record as favoring the use of PP's, and gone on record as disfavoring this psyche, the two do not go together in this case. Discipline, in whatever form, is only appropriate where the player should have known better. That is not the case here. I think this case meets the "could have known" criterion of L72B1, but I do not think it meets [or even comes seriously close to] the "should have known" criterion for discipline. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:39:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:39:37 +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 BAA05120 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:39:23 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:42:23 +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 QAA13419 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:37:50 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3601BC6B.42D8@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:37:28 +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 vitold wrote: > One point more - after BOOT (partner became silent) the only aim of 1Heart > bid was to make pressure on the opponents. With combination of BOOT it > is infraction, described in L73F2 > "LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION > F. Violation of Proprieties > When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage > to an innocent opponent, > 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception > if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference > from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no > demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at > the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director > shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)" I'm not convinced that L73F2 helps. The 1H bid was a bid, not a "remark, manner, tempo, or the like". It seems to me that a "could have known" Law can only be applied here if he CHK at the time of the 2D bid. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:40:05 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05134 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:39:58 +1000 Received: from default (client86f1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.241]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA05349; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:43:00 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:42:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde251$ccf3ccc0$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: Bridge Laws Date: 17 September 1998 13:38 Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced >Grattan wrote: > >>++++ I have read David and Tony with great interest. It appears to >>me: >> 1. At trick 2 there is no logical alternative to a Heart >> return in an auction where South has neither bid >> out of rotation nor psyched. > >Well, it is barely possible that a North who has just won the first >trick against a slam with one of his CAKQ might logically consider >trying to cash another one. The problem arose not because North >returned a heart in actual play, but because East, believing that >South had hearts as a result of his shenanigans, (a) banned a spade >lead and (b) claimed. Without the infraction, he would have done >neither, and there is at least a reasonable chance that the contract >would therefore have made. (Ob Question: is the information that East >has banned a spade lead rather than a club lead "authorised" to North, >in that he now knows that a second club will not cash? The answer to >this is not, I venture to suggest, as obvious as your first reaction >might indicate.) +++ Well, in my thoughts are the probability that the auction would not be the same if East held two small clubs, the obscure nature of looking for a Spade ruff given North's holding, the possibility that if we have a Spade trick we will eventually get it, and the fear that if there is a Heart ruff we have only the one chance to get it. All thoughts available with no UI. East, I think, told us he had no losers - gratuitous information and not made available to North by South. > >> 2. Whilst agreeing David's principle concerning >> 72B1 I find the application here very remote >> and unlikely, unless there is a history with >> the player. The ruling is possible but I would >> be reluctant to make it. > >As I have tried to point out, the intentions, or history, of this >particular South player do not matter. It is not at all unlikely that >a player who wanted to bid 1H with that South hand would do all in his >power to ensure that his partner could take no part in the subsequent >proceedings. You may tell me that nobody *would* actually cheat in >that fashion, but that is not relevant; all that matters is that >somebody *could*. > +++ Well now, is that really right? I do not think 'somebody' is involved at all. I think it is *this* offender and the question is whether *he* could have known at the time of *his* infraction that it would be *likely* to damage his opponents. I understood this was a young and (maybe) naive player who claims to have just thought of the psyche post infraction? - never having been there before. I do not judge the issue but I think the nature of the issue must be fairly put; however, if you do give credence to what he says then it is not easy to envisage his potentially foreseeing the *likelihood* of advantage for his side in the infraction *at the time he committed it* - although for a long-in-the-tooth player the possibility is certainly there. Concerning 73E would you be prepared to pause for a moment to contemplate the difference between "may appropriately attempt" and "may attempt appropriately" ? +++ Cheers David! What a pleasure to disagree with such a respected figure for once! Since I lost Edgar I have been feeling a bit deprived. ~~Grattan~~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 01:52:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:52:06 +1000 Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05200 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:52:00 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.239] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zJgNP-0004Tt-00; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:53:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bde253$3c9b1000$ef3363c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:52:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" 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 Jeremy, or David +AFs-Martin+AF0-, or both, wrote: +AD4APg- First, I agree with Grattan that it is absolutely clear that the +AD4APg- wording +ACI-a player may appropriately attempt ...+ACI- in L73E means +AD4APg- +ACI-it is appropriate for a player to attempt ...+ACI- rather than +ACI-a +AD4APg- player may attempt ..., so long as he does so appropriately+ACI-. +AD4APg- Otherwise it is more or less saying +ACI-you may act legally+ACI- without +AD4APg- saying what is legal ... not a very useful law. If that is what it means, why is that not what it says? I know that there are many contributors to this list whose native tongue is not English, but for those who are English speakers to be unaware of the function of an adverb appears to me extraordinary. Almost as extraordinary, in fact, as the implication that the authors of the Laws did not know the English language. The second sentence of L73E begins: +ACI-It is entirely appropriate to avoid...+ACI- - if that had been the sense of the first sentence, it is possible that the same words would have been used. +ACI-A player may appropriately attempt to..+ACI- means in English that +ACI-a player may attempt, in an approriate manner, to...+ACI-, and it does not mean anything else. If the meaning had been as Grattan and others have asserted, why was the word +ACI-appropriately+ACI- used at all, since it adds nothing whatever to the sense of +ACI-A player may attempt to deceive an opponent...+ACI-? +AD4APg- +ACMAIwAjACMAIwAjACMAIwAjACM- I too think that a disciplinary penalty is totally +AD4APg- inappropriate. Perhaps DB might have meant a PPf or PPw but, frankly, +AD4APg- unless there is clear and overwhelming evidence that the player did +AD4APg- commit the infraction +ACo-knowingly and intentionally+ACo-, eg. the player +AD4APg- admits to this, then I think that it is a highly dangerous course to +AD4APg- take and one that is likely to lead to a defamation of character court +AD4APg- case. It seems to me that it is far better to stick to an objective +AD4APg- 'player could have known' criterion and simply adjust the score as we +AD4APg- do in UI cases and also record the hand for the L+ACY-E. This way, no-one +AD4APg- need be accused of any deliberate cheating or breach of ethics, the +AD4APg- NOs are fully protected and the one in million case of the deliberate +AD4APg- cheat can be dealt with by the L+ACY-E when repeated instances are +AD4APg- reported and the pattern spotted. +ACMAIwAjACMAIwAjACMAIwAjACMAIwAjACMAIw- Of course I do not believe that the opening out of turn was intentional, and I (in common with others) have said this many times. However, the player's actions following the infraction were, in my view, simply unfair play (and a number of other contributors have felt the same). It is my belief that, having found himself (fortuitously, and without premeditation, but that does not matter) in a position where he could deceive the opponents more or less without risk, the player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate deception. I cannot believe that it is open to a player to take cynical advantage of his own infraction in such a fashion. What he did appears to me a clear breach of L73E - and a clear indication that the word +ACI-appropriately+ACI- appears in that Law in order to allow a distinction between deceptions that are appropriate and those that are not. I do not know what +ACI-PPf+ACI- or +ACI-PPw+ACI- mean, nor do I want to know. Unlike, apparently, the writers of the Laws, when I use an adjective such as +ACI-disciplinary+ACI-, it is because that is what I mean. If I had been a member of the Appeals Committee, I would most certainly have accused the South player of unfair play, and he could sue me if he dared. The fear of litigation has led to much foolishness in the drafting of our Laws and regulations, and much damage to the game of bridge at high levels. This should, in my view, cease. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:05:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:05:46 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05405 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:05:41 +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 JAA11696 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809171608.JAA11696@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: RE:Scoring at cross-imps Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:04:34 -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 Jan Romanski wrote: > > David Stevenson: > > > > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > > > > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you > > factor the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > > > > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams > > event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > > > > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? > > Is it meaningful if you don't? > > > > Anything else? > > > > The best solution is to divide each result by number of comparisons. > No problem for computer, results are "realistic" and +3/-3 is OK as > A+/A-. > Herman De Wael has a good argument that the divisor used for cross-IMP-Pairs should be the number of results, not the number of comparisons. This counter-intuitive idea is discussed on his web site (www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw). He has convinced me, but I have not been able to convince anyone else! The most appealing argument for me was that if you were to double, or triple, etc., the number of results, with the same distribution of scores, then the IMPs for a given score in a smaller field should be the same as for that score in a larger field. Dividing by the number of results achieves that outcome, while dividing by the number of comparisons does not. Counter-arguments usually simplify the problem down to two tables, resulting in an IMP result that is divided by two. Herman would have an answer for that, so don't think it automatically nullifies his idea. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:14:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:14:00 +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 CAA05452 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:13:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA24184 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA08307 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:17:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809171617.MAA08307@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > It is my belief that, having found himself (fortuitously, > and without premeditation, but that does not matter) in a position > where he could deceive the opponents more or less without risk, the > player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate > deception. Where in the Laws may this "duty" be found? Does it also apply to false cards by declarer? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:19:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:19:27 +1000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (iCSrM6H8xqITILLE2c7/hRCDLComRKiW@panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05473 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:19:21 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA00906; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3600E140.F9A5EFC0@village.uunet.be> References: <199809161705.MAA23502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:22:11 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:15 AM -0400 9/17/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> >> Is it common practice to consider a player's peers to be only >> those people who would have taken the exact same action as that player did >> under the circumstances? Or is it common to consider his peers to be >> those people with comparable experience and system? >> > >I don't think it is right to consider a player's peers at all! > >I think we should be looking for the percentage in "time". How often >would _this_ player, in this situation, choose A, or B ? > >The fact that in order to determine this, we ask a few others, is only a >method, it should never become the rule. > >Do remark however, that we can never really determine this percentage. >Of course, if a player has chosen B, it is hard to say afterwards that >he should have done this only 30% of the time. >That is why we take recourse to "peers". > >I am in the process of putting this in a formula, and it seems to me >that the discussion is not needed after all. > >In my current version of the formula, there is no difference between a >player chosing a 30% line in stead of a 31% (with correct info), as >against a difference between 70% and 71%. Only the 1% difference is of >importance. Since you're going to the trouble of coming up with a formula I had better describe a line of reasoning I think is useful in decisions of this sort. As I said earlier the "post-priori" probability of the NOS choosing B, the unsuccessful action, is 1, since they did choose it. Probabilities still enter the picture, however. Bridge is full of uncertainties, in the bidding and the play. A typical bidding decision is based on the player's own estimate of its success. In the case in question let's say West estimated he'd take nine tricks 60% of the time and 10 tricks 40% of the time. At matchpoints he has a clear pass, given this evaluation. Further, it is not at all the same thing to say that 60% of the time he'd pass and 40% of the time he'd bid game. Once he came to this evaluation of the probabilities he would pass 100% of the time, as he did. The MI must affect the NOS's evaluation of the probabilities in order to adjust. Let's say the committee judges that the correct information makes the game 30% more likely to make than the MI did. Now this same player would estimate that he could take 10 tricks 52% of the time (40% x 1.3), so he would bid the game 100% of the time. (I've multiplied probabilities when I could have been adding them. It depends on what the AC means when they say "30% more likely to make." The figures are arbitrary in any case, so adjust yours to suit.) This is one reason it's not relevant for the committee to say "he should have bid game with the information he had" or "The Committee felt that the pair should have reached 4S anyway." The committee may think that, given the MI, game is 60% likely to succeed and with correct information game is 75% likely to succeed. What's relevant to Law 40 is that the correct information changed the odds in favor of the correct decision. The amount of the change should be taken into account in Law 12C2. To see that even a small change in the odds in the direction of the correct decision may be relevant consider the case of a player who is having trouble deciding what to do. If it takes him a while to make his choice it's likely because he considers them close to 50-50. Eventually he judges one 51% likely to succeed and the other 49%. Now a 3% change in the odds is enough to sway his decision 100% of the time. The committee probably won't, and perhaps shouldn't, take these kinds of calculations into account explicitly. They take them into account implicitly when they ask questions like "What was the most favorable result that was likely?" in the absence of the MI. In case my reasoning is not clear consider a simple decision in playing a hand. Most of us know that, with four to the queen out and nothing else to go on, playing for the drop will work 52% of the time while finessing on the second round will work 48% of the time. Most, however, will play for the drop most of the time, as we should. AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:24:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:24:04 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05491 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:23:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA24463 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA08324 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809171627.MAA08324@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: RE:Scoring at cross-imps X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Herman De Wael has a good argument that the divisor used for > cross-IMP-Pairs should be the number of results, not the number of > comparisons. I agree with Herman. Check his web page. > Counter-arguments usually simplify the problem down to two tables, This struck me as the easiest way to see that Herman is correct. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:32:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:32:35 +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 CAA05531 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:32:26 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h54.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id UAA21562; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:35:16 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3601D507.4CC0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:35:35 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rickard, Jeremy" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jeremy Rickard wrote: "I'm not convinced that L73F2 helps. The 1H bid was a bid, not a "remark, manner, tempo, or the like". It seems to me that a "could have known" Law can only be applied here if he CHK at the time of the 2D bid." But I guess that enforcing partner (by means of BOOT) in combination with creating the impression at opponent's mind is this "or the like" from L73F2 Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 02:41:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:41:09 +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 CAA05573 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:41:01 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06859 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:43:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:43:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: open pairs lille In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, David Martin wrote: > Another thought Henk! You said > > SNIP > > > "Since the whole event is played barometer style, there's no need for > > a > > skip. It is also trivial to introduce mid-session intervals." > > > > AND > > > > "It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance." > > > > ########## If the event is barometer scored then arrow-switches > > won't work at all as each board will be being played simultaneously in > > the same round and not by different pairs in different rounds. > > ############# Why? The balance is determined by who sits NS and who sits EW on a board, not the order in which the boards are played. Think of it like this: for R rounds and T tables, you have RT little matches to play, 2 pairs (1 NS, 1 EW) play 1 particular board. For a regular movement, you chose the order of those matches such that each board is only played once in a round. For a barometer, you play all matches involving board 1 in round 1, all matches involving board 2 in round 2, etc. For example, take a 3 table Mitchell, with the pairs numbered 1N, 1E, ... and the boards A, B, C. Normally, you'd play Round 1 (1N, 1E, A) (2N, 2E, B) (3N, 3E, C) 2 (1N, 3E, B) (2N, 1E, C) (3N, 2E, A) 3 (1N, 2E, C) (2N, 3E, A) (3N, 1E, B) In a barometer you play Round 1 (1N, 1E, A) (2N, 3E, A) (3N, 2E, A) 2 (1N, 3E, B) (2N, 2E, B) (3N, 1E, B) 3 (1N, 2E, C) (2N, 1E, C) (3N, 3E, C) which is, as far as the balance is concerned, exactly the same 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 Mobile: +31.6.55861746 NOTE NEW NUMBER! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 03:17:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:17:51 +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 DAA05690 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:17:41 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA27181 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:20:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027124; Thu Sep 17 12:18:28 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE23D.269ABF00@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:14:50 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE23D.269ABF00@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:35:58 -0400 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Peter Haglich writes >Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being intended as >lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit? It seems obvious to me. And would be illegal if you'd opened 2D OOT to silence partner, but *it* *was* *inadvertent* ####And that seems to me to be the point that is becoming overlooked in this otherwise well-argued discussion. Granted that inferring intent is difficult and undesirable if a more objective method is available that does not generally destroy equity, there seems to be such a bias against those who would use their Law 40A rights to a tactical bid that "could have known" is being used as a presumption of intent. When it is fairly plain to everyone that the action which silenced partner was INDEED inadvertent, a could have known presumption appears inappropriate. A player's options are restricted enough when an inadvertent mistake bars partner from the auction. He should at least be able to take whatever shot he chooses at this juncture. If a psych, why not consider it amber, and rule against such player/partnership if a pattern develops? (I know, much of the world doesn't have that option, but we may learn from the EBU, may we not?) To automatically strain to rule there was intent to deceive under the could have known provision is in effect a slap in the face of the ethical player who is just trying to salvage the board on those rare occasions in which his irregularity has plunged him into an abyss. I fully understand the other point of view, but do not concur with it, for I believe it will produce an inequitable situation by doubly penalising the initial offence in a majority of cases. Certainly I am sure none of us wish to infer any prior intent in the instant case...and the bad feelings that are sure to ensue in any other such case may also mitigate against the universal application of could have known in such cases when no remedy may be needful in the majority of them. Craig#### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 03:25:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:25:49 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05719 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:25:41 +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 NAA17644 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809171728.NAA25143@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01bde230$dd5848a0$LocalHost@default> (gester@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: > WBF Meetings in Lille : other odds and ends > from the minutes. ["Sundries".] > "No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law > that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law > 64 means the two trick penalty." What is the basis for this interpretation? I could see an assumption that declarer, unaware of the revoke, could win a later trick with a card that he could have played on the revoke trick. But what if that is impossible under any legal play, or any normal play? Example: in 3NT, declarer has a "club suit" containing C42 and S3. The defenders lead the first two club tricks, and declarer plays the S3 to the second trick. Dummy, who has forfeited his rights, asks about the revoke. Declarer corrects, and the defenders run five club tricks; declarer then claims the last eight tricks. Should declarer get seven tricks or six, assuming that he would still have had eight tricks without the corrected revoke? -- 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 Sep 18 03:28:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:28:50 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05746 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:28:42 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-187.access.net.il [192.116.204.187]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA13544; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:31:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36014768.C030C3E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:31:20 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <199809161441.KAA06984@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear sir, Axiom: NO DOUBT for me that 2D OBOOR was inadvertent. The moment you wrote that the case was from the juniors' trial I became more stubborn in my opinion. I will be very grateful if you'll be so kind to point out what is wrong bellow. First of all let's agree about the UI definition : UI is defined in my bible as .."an Information which couldn't be available if no infraction occurred ". If I am wrong here , the following wouldn't be right..... Question 1 : If there wouldn't be that OBOOR and East open 1D , is anyone able to tell me that South should bid 1H ???? I can agree for 3.14% or less (just to be sure the circle's perimeter will fit it !!!LOL). IMHO , in absence of infraction South's call will be either 2S or pass . The scenario will be : For 2S - West would bid 3S or any other strong forcing bid and North will pass for 96.86%......... For pass - West would bid 1H (again for 96.84% or more) , North would bid 2Cl or pass and from now on N-S are out of the bidding. This is why my opinion is that South's bid of 1H shows exactly a weak hand with hearts , an information which by no way could be available to North , in absence of the infraction.....If the definition above was right - IT IS UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION . Question 2 : I explained that good players , with clever bidding system : 1) when open a 2 weak and 2) in competitive bidding the opener's second bid (usually at 4th or even 5th level) is a Lead Direction for his partner = to lead or to return if he wins the lead ! Very difficult to convince me that national junior trials' level don't play this system/convention. In the case we discussed , IMHO Richard used this system : his 1H was his Lead Direction bid , which was brilliant to be done at 1st level. He couldn't do it , if the irregularity of 2D - OBOOR- shouldn't be there. This is my opinion about the main problem in this case. I beg you again to explain me what is wrong with.... And the last remark relevant for the case , not for my UI opinion : The 1H bid - either as psyche or UI - is very ..."not nice" because is protected by the Law , compelling his partner to be dumb. One may say that Law 75A5 allows it - I don't interpret Law 75A5 this way - one can take advantage after the irregularity's "taxes" were paid , but this advantage doesn't include a new infraction. Friendly Dany P.S. Up to this e-mail : 100% of the answers to the poll were 'Psyche" !!!!! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 03:38:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:38:09 +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 DAA05804 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:38:04 +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 KAA22579 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809171740.KAA22579@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:38:42 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > ############ When a board is unplayable, I factor up all other > > scores in a linear fashion. Av+ and Av- are also defined in the EBU > > Supplement as being SquareRoot(8X) where X is the number of times that > > the board is played and this is rounded up to the nearest whole > > integer. Thus, in your example, Av+ and Av- would be +11 imps and -11 > > imps respectively. I do not believe that it matters whether you > > divide the scores or not unless you want to compare performances > > between events in which case dividing each score by the number of > > comparisons makes sense. ############# But dividing by the number of results gives a more valid performance comparison, according to Herman De Wael. The difference is not earth-shaking! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 03:52:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:52:28 +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 DAA05827 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:52:23 +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 KAA23874; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809171754.KAA23874@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Cue bid conventional? Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:52:30 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com id KAA23874 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: > To my previous message > > =20 > > Playing " inverted majors " ie single raise forcing and short > suit try : > > =20 > > 1S - P - 2S(1) - P > > 3C(2) -P - ..3D(3)=85 > > =20 > > (1) 2S is alerted as forcing, good fit, 9+ HPC > > (2) 3C is alerted as a short suit (singleton or void) > > (3) 3D shows DA and ask partner to cue bid his controls > > =20 > > I have always alerted 3D and explain when required as DA. > > If I understand 3 as above, I will no more alert 3D because > > it is not a convention " strictu sensus "?? > > Or continue to alert as a treatment? > > =20 > Marvin French wrote > =20 > Not a convention. Alert 3D anyway, because the meaning of the bid > is so specific and might not be expected by the opponents. The > fact > that it asks partner to cue bid his controls is a secondary > meaning > that is a derivative of the primary meaning, not something new. If > you had written, "3D shows DA and our agreement is that he should > now likewise show controls," which is identical in meaning, surely > no one would consider that the statement makes 3D a convention. =20 >=20 > ACBL policy seems to be aimed at Alerting unexpected meanings of > calls, and not Alerting expected meanings, regardless of whether a > call is a convention or not. The ACBL Alert Regulation is rather > inconsistent in applying this policy. > =20 > The full 16 pages of the ACBL Alert Regulation are viewable and > downloadable from the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org) "Library." A > complete summary is available from me for the asking, either a > two-page .txt file or a one-page WordPerfect 6.0 .wpd file.=20 >=20 > Thx > I know very well ACBL Alert Regulation and its inconsistencies > (including > the marvelous delayed alerts=85.), having published many articles on > alerts > in a local bridge bulletin. I was just surprised to know that 3D in this > sequence > is not a " convention " according to the above definition. Can I call > this a > treatment (I understood that a treatment is an agreement on number of > cards or HPC promised by a natural bid) ? If not, what is the correct > term > I should use when teaching such an agreement? >=20 The 3D bid is a treatment. There have been several ACBL definitions of that word, but I believe the one in *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge* is the current one: "A natural bid that indicates a desire to play in the denomination named (or promises or requests values in that denomination), but that also, by agreement, gives or requests information on which further action could be based." That certainly fits the 3D bid. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 04:06:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:06:26 +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 EAA05876 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:06:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA27695; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08434; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:09:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809171809.OAA08434@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > The Laws, rightly, are not concerned with what a player did > or did not actually know. They are concerned with what a player > actually did, and with whether the action taken could have been taken > by an out-and-out villain. Thank you for the fine exposition of L72B1. > The question is: was this ruling justified? In order to adjust the > score under Law 72B1, the Appeals Committee must determine whether the > South player could have known, at the time he opened 2D out of turn, > that this infraction would be likely to damage the non-offending > side. Had the Appeals Committee wished, they might also have > considered Law 23 and asked themselves whether South could have known, > at the time he opened 2D, that his partners enforced silence during > the subsequent auction could result in damage to East-West. I do not > believe that such a consideration would have been appropriate, but it > was an avenue open to the Committee. I don't see why the objection to L23 -- it seems synonymous with L72B1 in this case. Either way, the standard is "likely," not something less stringent like "possible." > Rather, the question is: could a South bent on > wrong-doing have acted in the way that the actual South player did? Not exactly. The question is: would a villain have _wished_ to act this way in order to gain advantage? Anybody _can_ act in almost any way some fraction of the time. > In my view, the answer to this question is clearly Yes. When an > imaginative player picks up that South hand, various tactical > possibilities are likely to occur to him. Our bridge judgments differ, then. With a weak hand and 6-0-2-5 distribution, it seems to me more beneficial to find our contract in a black suit. How am I going to pick the right suit if partner is barred? I suppose I might be persuaded if the partnership methods do not offer any weak two-suited overcall to describe this hand, but even then barring partner seems pretty dubious. But differing bridge judgment is no cause for alarm. > North-South are severely fined for Souths actions, which were wholly > incompatible with fair play. But this is alarming indeed. Why is a psych incompatible with fair play? The opponents know that North is barred. Again I ask, are false cards by declarer incompatible with fair play? How do they differ from the current situation except for being more familiar? And even if you disagree with my bridge judgment, do you really think it is so far fetched that any sensible player would automatically reject it? Is it completely ridiculous to look for a black suit fit? A procedural (let alone disciplinary!) penalty seems insupportable. > I do not consider that they > are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may > appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or > play  such deception as South practised does not begin to come under > the category of appropriate as far as I am concerned. Please explain, under your interpretation, which calls and plays are appropriate and which are not. (I'm with Grattan on the reading of 73E, I'm afraid.) > (Ob Question: is the information that East > has banned a spade lead rather than a club lead "authorised" to North, > in that he now knows that a second club will not cash? The answer to > this is not, I venture to suggest, as obvious as your first reaction > might indicate.) I'm missing the point, I guess. I would have said AI and that the answer is obvious. > As I have tried to point out, the intentions, or history, of this > particular South player do not matter. Agreed. > It is not at all unlikely that > a player who wanted to bid 1H with that South hand would do all in his > power to ensure that his partner could take no part in the subsequent > proceedings. True but irrelevant. The question is whether a villain would prefer the option "bar partner and psych" over the option "bid normally." > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference > from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no > demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at > the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director > shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)" It seems a very long stretch to go from remarks and manners to an ostensibly legal bid. > Your hand - nt distribution, no honours, fourth seat, red against white. You > opened (OOT) 2nt (natural of course, end of 30-th). This is a very clear case for L72B1. No question a villain in _this_ position could see the likelihood of gain. He does not need partner's cooperation, and even if partner has a good hand, barring him may well avoid an unmakeable contract. And I have no objection to a PP or DP here. I guess where we differ is that I don't see how the 6-0-2-5 hand is in the same category -- a question of bridge judgment again. I suppose I was wrong about one thing: if this case were appealed, it looks as though I'd have to give back the deposit. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 04:20:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:20:13 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA05956 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:20:07 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28023 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08447 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:23:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:23:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809171823.OAA08447@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > UI is defined in my bible as .."an Information which couldn't be > available if no infraction occurred ". Yes, I think you are wrong. Kaplan gave an example of L72A5 in action that went something like this: EW defend, and East has a penalty card in hearts. Declarer tells West to lead a heart, but he can't because he is void! This is AI to East and is a result of the infraction, but if it defeats the contract, that's perfectly OK. Here's my example: a player tries to open 1H, but he has missed the opening 1S bid, and 1H is insufficient, so he bids 4H instead. Now the withdrawn 1H call is UI, so partner correctly bases his play on partner having a preemptive 4H bid. This time, that turns out to be lucky. I think the answer in the original case goes back to "could have known," L72B1 or L23. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 04:29:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:29:24 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06000 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:29:17 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28550 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08460 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:32:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809171832.OAA08460@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > ...the arguments which a > number of people have presented. The most common one is > that it is legitimate to look at opponents' CC at times when it > is not the player's turn to call or play. That extraneous action > could well be instrumental in providing info. ~ Grattan ~ The question is whether an action like this is _extraneous_ or _illegal_. I have always believed the former, and I'm pleased to see the LC agree. There has never been any disagreement, I don't think, over what to do when an extraneous action _does_ provide info (score adjustment) or when it is _highly likely_ to provide info (PP). I hope there is now no longer disagreement over what to do when extraneous action does not and is highly unlikely to provide info in the existing circumstances (play on). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 05:19:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 05:19:19 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06168 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 05:19:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA21429 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:21:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021389; Thu Sep 17 14:21:18 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE24E.96F1D700@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE24E.96F1D700@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: 12C3 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:26:41 -0400 Encoding: 34 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:david@blakjak.demon.co.uk] When I originally espoused L12C3 in the ACBL I assumed that Districts and Units ran competent Appeals processes. If this is not the case then I would suggest that the ACBL [a] enables L12C3 for NABCs only [b] lays down instructions for its use [c] educates Districts and Units in proper appeals processes [d] refuses to license Regionals and Sectionals unless they conform to sensible Appeals policies [e] considers enabling L12C3 at a wider level only when the Appeals process becomes adequate ##### This seems an eminently sensible way of proceeding...but is it permitted? Do the laws allow opting out of L12C3 for only SOME of a zonal organisation's games? Would that be a reasonable interpretation of "unless zonal organisations specify otherwise"? Do you allow L12C3 in all games, even at lowest levels? Do other areas? At many sectionals and the majority of unit wide, unit and club games, the quality of appeals committees falls far short of that at the NABC level. To grant some of these committees carte blanche to do whatever they think is equitable could lead to substantial actual and even greater perceived abuse. This, quite apart from other logical arguments already advanced on this thread,- would mitigate strongly against universal application of L12C3 in our zone IMO. Craig ##### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 05:19:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 05:19:45 +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 FAA06183 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 05:19:39 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA13157; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:22:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rmaa13027; Thu Sep 17 14:21:25 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE24E.9B54E300@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:19:47 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE24E.9B54E300@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Herman De Wael'" Subject: RE: 12C3 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:36:35 -0400 Encoding: 35 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] We all know that different committees will come up with different judgments, whether or not they have L12C3 to work with. Giving them L12C3 just gives them some more options, so a larger number of different committees will be needed before two committees will actually arrive at the same outcome, but that is of no consequence. #### It may well be of consequence when the apperception of the average player, confronted with even more substantial variation in AC ruling than is now the case, is that such rulings are unfair. Respect for Laws and regulations requires a "consent of the governed" which is lost if it is felt that AC's have a free hand to favour their friends or fellow members of a clique or bridge elite. #### (snip) What do you prefer : the US system where the judge (or jury) gets to select the penalty, or the Koran, where the hand is chopped off even before the fair trial ends ? #### Under the US system, there are frequently rather delimited sentencing guidelines in statute, letting the legislative branch of government select the appropriate range of penalties. This is less restrictive than the absolutism of "off with his hand", but continues to vest control of the process in the lawmakers rather than the caprices of the judiciary, notwithstanding that there is often considerable opportunity for the exercise of judicial discretion subect to review. #### Giving a judiciary the power to vary rulings does not make for a bad judiciary ! #### But giving the power to a bad judiciary DOES make for bad rulings. Craig #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 07:36:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:36:37 +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 HAA06490 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:36:25 +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 JAA28767 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:39:17 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918093958.00934ce0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:39:58 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Exposed quitted trick. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one may be too easy. Defender W, having won the current trick, properly (66A -- see below) requires that all cards just played to the trick be faced. In complying, his partner inadvertently faces both the card he played to the current trick, and the one played to the previous trick. Of course this makes it clear what (if any) signal was being passed. Is this simply a UI situation? In evaluating LA are we to assume that absent the extra information Mr W would/would not have remembered his partner's previous card. Is testimony from W to the effect of "Of course I remembered the previous trick, that's why I needed to see this one!" to be considered self-serving? ----- Law 66 Inspection of Tricks. A. Current Trick So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. B. Own Last Card Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played. C. Quitted Tricks Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke). --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Sep 18 08:06:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:06:42 +1000 Received: from serv4.vossnet.co.uk (qmailr@serv4.vossnet.co.uk [195.188.10.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA06541 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:06:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 2147 invoked from network); 17 Sep 1998 22:09:33 -0000 Received: from pool-133.vossnet.co.uk (HELO dhassan) (195.188.90.143) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 17 Sep 1998 22:09:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01fe01bde287$3f3d82a0$8f5abcc3@dhassan> From: "Damian Hassan" To: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:04:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I don't see why the objection to L23 -- it seems synonymous with L72B1 >in this case. > This distinction between L23 and L72B1 is confusing me. When considering this case of the psyche after the OBOOT, everyone seems to be interpreting the wording of L72B1: "...that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side..." as meaning that if the offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity *and the penalties arising from the irregularity and his subsequent actions* would be likely to damage the non-offending side. If this is the correct interpretation, then why do we have L23? Is it merely a redundant restatement of L72B1 as it applies to a particular set of irregularities? OTOH, could L72B1 apply only to those situations where the irregularity itself is likely to cause damage, such as the 4th in hand OBOOT of 2NT on a weak hand? Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 08:18:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:18:09 +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 IAA06571 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:18:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22500 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:13:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809171913.OAA22500@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:13:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In message <3.0.1.32.19980916174448.007282a8@pop.mindspring.com>, > "Michael S. Dennis" writes > >At 12:15 PM 9/16/98 -0700, Jan wrote: > >>Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >>> Speaking of rewriting history... Please note the difference between > >>> "could claim" and "did claim." > >> > >Indeed they could! Moreover, the lack of procedural definition allows them > >to dodge the question entirely. They can fully satisfy the requirements of > >L12C3 merely by stating that the final score adjustment was deemed to "do > >equity". See Herman's defense of Lille #35. > > > Labeo: It is not the law which allows it, it is the lack of parental > guidance. This aspect should be a feature of the regulations. What is > not easily known is whether the opinion from ACBL members that we > see on BLML is representative of a *minority* that feels the ACBL does > not cater for them. If not it is very hard to understand why the > 'problem' persists since you would think that the majority would get > their way in the end. > -- Labeo > Such people are clearly a minority, since the majority of ACBL members have never given 10 minutes thought to any of these problems. [And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, really.] Whether majority or minority, the vast majority of ACBL members have not the faintest idea how to change anything the ACBL does. I know others can [and have] explained this better than I, but basically most officials of the ACBL are chosen by other officials, and vice versa. I am a very active local player and somtimes director, but I have never voted for any officer or policy of the ACBL, and have never seen a ballot or election of such officers. I have been told they take place, but no-one around here actively solicits any imput whatsoever regarding the process, or gives out any information. I'm not nearly as critical of the ACBL as some people are, but for whatever it's worth the ACBL is definately _not_ anything vaguely resembling a democratic organization. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it isn't. -Grant From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 08:42:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:42:56 +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 IAA06618 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:42:51 +1000 Received: from ip93.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.93]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980917224552.ULSL2535.fep4@ip93.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:45:52 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: bidding box regulations Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:45:53 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360490d5.2136792@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, 16 Sep 1998 08:19:39 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: [about the L25B interpretation by the WBFLC] >+++ I suggested to the Committee that a footnote be added. >The Committee was reluctant to do this. That is certainly a >change from the Kaplan style. He was quite amenable to >explanations in footnotes. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I would have preferred the footnote. Next question: how are we now to rule when a call has been changed because the caller changed his mind? If L25B is only valid for "stupid mistakes", we seem to be missing a law specifying the penalty for other changes of calls. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 13:15:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:15:12 +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 NAA07060 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:15:06 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.13]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980918031741.MNTY24868@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 03:17:41 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:15:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde2b2$8566ba00$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 Grant Sterling wrote: snipped > Such people are clearly a minority, since the majority of ACBL >members have never given 10 minutes thought to any of these problems. >[And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, really.] > Whether majority or minority, the vast majority of ACBL members >have not the faintest idea how to change anything the ACBL does. I know >others can [and have] explained this better than I, but basically most >officials of the ACBL are chosen by other officials, and vice versa. I am >a very active local player and somtimes director, but I have never voted >for any officer or policy of the ACBL, and have never seen a ballot or >election of such officers. Members vote for Unit board Unit board votes for National Board National Board votes policy It really happens this way >I have been told they take place, but no-one >around here actively solicits any imput whatsoever regarding the process, >or gives out any information. > I'm not nearly as critical of the ACBL as some people are, but for >whatever it's worth the ACBL is definately _not_ anything vaguely >resembling a democratic organization. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it >isn't. > > -Grant > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 15:00:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:00:26 +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 PAA07468 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:00:21 +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 WAA06514 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809180502.WAA06514@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:01:00 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Richard F Beye wrote: > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > snipped > > > Such people are clearly a minority, since the majority of ACBL > >members have never given 10 minutes thought to any of these problems. > >[And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, really.] > > Whether majority or minority, the vast majority of ACBL members > >have not the faintest idea how to change anything the ACBL does. I know > >others can [and have] explained this better than I, but basically most > >officials of the ACBL are chosen by other officials, and vice versa. I am > >a very active local player and somtimes director, but I have never voted > >for any officer or policy of the ACBL, and have never seen a ballot or > >election of such officers. > > Members vote for Unit board > Unit board votes for National Board > National Board votes policy > > It really happens this way. The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American politics: The people vote for members of the City Council The people vote for the city's Mayor The people vote for the state's governing bodies The people vote for the state's Governor The people vote for members of the U. S. Congress The people vote for President of the U. S. It's called "popular election," and it's the way ACBL's Directors and President should be elected. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 19:13:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:13:27 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08096 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:13:19 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.153] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zJwar-0004sV-00; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:12:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bde2e4$5125e220$992b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Fw: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:11:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn +ADw-Dburn+AEA-btinternet.com+AD4- To: Steve Willner +ADw-willner+AEA-cfa183.harvard.edu+AD4- Date: 18 September 1998 10:10 Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced +AD4-Steve Willner wrote: +AD4- +AD4AWw-snip+AF0- +AD4- +AD4APg-I don't see why the objection to L23 -- it seems synonymous with +AD4-L72B1 +AD4APg-in this case. +AD4- +AD4-I don't have a strong view about this. L23 appears to me to cater for +AD4-situations where one +ACI-signs off+ACI- by first committing an irregularity, +AD4-then making a bid which might not otherwise end the auction. To borrow +AD4-an example from Eric Landau and to alter it for my own purposes, +AD4-suppose you had this hand: +AD4- +AD4-Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx +AD4- +AD4-Partner passes. What action do you take? +AD4- +AD4-What you would like to do, of course, is open 3NT and play there. +AD4-Unhappily, your partnership has the agreement that this opening bid +AD4-denies more than one side guard, so there is a good chance that +AD4-partner will foolishly remove to 4C. You could, of course, wait for +AD4-RHO to pass, then open 1C (or 2C) and hope for the best, but that +AD4-might allow LHO into the auction at a low level, and the opponents +AD4-might find a save or even a make in four of a major. No, by far your +AD4-best course with this hand is to open 1C +ACo-before+ACo- RHO has a chance to +AD4-call, then correct to 3NT, silencing partner and making life a great +AD4-deal harder for the opponents. +AD4- +AD4-Now, there has been a fair amount of what I can only describe as +AD4-bleating about this kind of thing on the list so far. Apparently, if +AD4-anyone actually did this, we would take no action at all. We would, +AD4-perhaps, record the hand and wait to see if the player did it another +AD4-six or seven times in order to establish a +ACI-pattern+ACI- before actually +AD4-doing anything. And yet it could not be more obvious that the player, +AD4-in opening out of turn, has committed an infraction that he could have +AD4-known at the time could benefit his side (L23 might very properly be +AD4-invoked in this case). +AD4- +AD4-I say +ACI-it could not be more obvious+ACI- - it could, and the case under +AD4-discussion is an example. People appear to me to believe that the +AD4-following argument makes some kind of sense. It does not: +AD4- +AD4-South on the hand in question did not intend to psyche hearts when he +AD4-opened 2D out of turn+ADs- therefore +AD4-Following his opening out of turn, he is at liberty to psyche hearts +AD4-despite the fact that his infraction has removed a very large element +AD4-of risk from such an action. +AD4- +AD4-As far as the Laws are concerned, it makes absolutely no difference at +AD4-all at what point the notion of bidding hearts actually +ACo-did+ACo- occur to +AD4-South. The Laws say, in effect, that if the notion of bidding hearts +AD4-naturally +ACo-could have+ACo- occurred to South before he opened 2D out of +AD4-turn, and if it +ACo-could have+ACo- occurred to him that silencing his +AD4-partner before bidding hearts would work to his side's benefit, then +AD4-his combined actions are illegal. Now, as you will have gathered, this +AD4-South is a highly imaginative player to whom the notion of opening +AD4-such as 1H in first seat could easily have occurred. The rest follows +AD4-as the night the day. +AD4- +AD4-Steve writes: +AD4- +AD4APg-Not exactly. The question is: would a villain have +AF8-wished+AF8- to act +AD4APg-this way in order to gain advantage? Anybody +AF8-can+AF8- act in almost +AD4APg-any way some fraction of the time. +AD4- +AD4-and he writes this despite having agreed with my opinion that the Laws +AD4-are not concerned with intent, only with actions. +ACI-Wished+ACI- is simply +AD4-another expression for +ACI-intended+ACI- above, and the Laws do not concern +AD4-themselves with what a player +ACI-wished+ACI- to do, any more than with what +AD4-a player +ACI-intended+ACI- to do (yes thank you, I know about L46B, and a +AD4-remarkably foolish piece of legislation it is). +AD4- +AD4- +AD4-Steve continues: +AD4- +AD4APg-Our bridge judgments differ, then. With a weak hand and 6-0-2-5 +AD4APg-distribution, it seems to me more beneficial to find our contract in +AD4-a +AD4APg-black suit. How am I going to pick the right suit if partner is +AD4APg-barred? +AD4- +AD4-Our bridge judgments do not matter+ADs- what you or I might do on this +AD4-hand is a complete irrelevance. The question is simply: +AD4- +AD4-if the South player's approach to the game is such that making a +AD4-natural bid in hearts might occur to him (and there is strong evidence +AD4-that it might, since it actually did)+ADs- and +AD4- +AD4-if it might occur to him that benefit to his side might derive from +AD4-having partner unable to participate in whatever auction might follow +AD4-his natural bid in hearts, then his combined actions are not legal +AD4-under L72B1 (oh, all right, and L23, and in my minority opinion L73E +AD4-as well). +AD4- +AD4-Steve continues: +AD4- +AD4APg-But this is alarming indeed. Why is a psych incompatible with fair +AD4APg-play? +AD4- +AD4-It is not. But a psych normally carries a considerable element of +AD4-risk. If, through your own infraction, you have removed or at any rate +AD4-severely lessened that risk, it is not +ACI-appropriate+ACI- (L73) or fair +AD4-then to perpetrate a psych. Does anyone believe that South would have +AD4-overcalled 1D with 1H had he not committed the infraction of opening +AD4-out of turn? +AD4- +AD4APg-The opponents know that North is barred. +AD4- +AD4-So what? Do you have agreements that will enable you to deal with a +AD4-psych by a player whose partner is silenced? Do you think it +AD4-reasonable that every pair should have such agreements? +AD4- +AD4APg-Again I ask, are +AD4APg-false cards by declarer incompatible with fair play? How do they +AD4APg-differ from the current situation except for being more familiar? +AD4- +AD4-If you honestly cannot see this, then I will not attempt to explain it +AD4-at length here. I will send a private message. Basically, a false card +AD4-or psychic bid by a defender differs from a false card by declarer in +AD4-that there is a risk that partner as well as the opponents might be +AD4-deceived by it. If the risk that partner might be deceived has been +AD4-removed because you have done something illegal, then you are not (in +AD4-my view) entitled to pratcise deception of this kind. I would say, +AD4-however, that in my view it is not possible for declarer to play a +AD4AIg-false card+ACI-, though this is a matter of semantics and I am in enough +AD4-trouble over +ACI-appropriately+ACI- already :-) +AD4- +AD4APg-And even if you disagree with my bridge judgment, do you really think +AD4APg-it is so far fetched that any sensible player would automatically +AD4APg-reject it? Is it completely ridiculous to look for a black suit fit? +AD4APg-A procedural (let alone disciplinary+ACE-) penalty seems insupportable. +AD4- +AD4-Only if you do not believe that South has (in effect) taken unfair +AD4-advantage of the position in which he was placed through his own +AD4-infraction. Since I believe strongly that he did precisely that, and +AD4-since I believe that such actions are a breach of +ACI-order and +AD4-discipline+ACI-, then a disciplinary penalty seems to me obvious. I don't +AD4-think that L91A relates solely to breaking up fights+ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg-Please explain, under your interpretation, which calls and plays are +AD4APg-appropriate and which are not. (I'm with Grattan on the reading of +AD4APg-73E, I'm afraid.) +AD4- +AD4-Oh, don't be afraid - being of the same opinion as the man who wrote +AD4-the book should not give cause for fear. But it should be clear from +AD4-what I have written that I do not consider it appropriate for a player +AD4-to take advantage of his own infraction in order to make a deceptive +AD4-call or play from which the risk has - solely through the infraction - +AD4-been removed. +AD4- +AD4APgA+- (Ob Question: is the information that East +AD4APgA+- has banned a spade lead rather than a club lead +ACI-authorised+ACI- to +AD4-North, +AD4APgA+- in that he now knows that a second club will not cash? The answer +AD4-to +AD4APgA+- this is not, I venture to suggest, as obvious as your first +AD4-reaction +AD4APgA+- might indicate.) +AD4APg- +AD4APg-I'm missing the point, I guess. I would have said AI and that the +AD4APg-answer is obvious. +AD4- +AD4-If without the infraction and what followed from it, North might have +AD4-thought it more likely that a second club would cash than that his +AD4-partner could ruff a heart (both, of course, very unlikely scenarios, +AD4-but he has to play something+ACE-) has not declarer been damaged as a +AD4-consequence of the infraction, and is he not entitled to redress? +AD4-Someone has quoted a Kaplan ruling where declarer told West to lead a +AD4-heart, but West was void, so he led something else and East gave him +AD4-an otherwise highly unlikely heart ruff. Kaplan's view was that this +AD4-was just bad luck. I am not sure that I agree with this, but it +AD4-appears that a precedent exists. +AD4- +AD4APgA+- As I have tried to point out, the intentions, or history, of this +AD4APgA+- particular South player do not matter. +AD4APg- +AD4APg-Agreed. +AD4- +AD4-Well, agreed and disagreed in roughly equal measure. +AD4- +AD4APgA+- It is not at all unlikely that +AD4APgA+- a player who wanted to bid 1H with that South hand would do all in +AD4-his +AD4APgA+- power to ensure that his partner could take no part in the +AD4-subsequent +AD4APgA+- proceedings. +AD4APg- +AD4APg-True but irrelevant. The question is whether a villain would prefer +AD4APg-the option +ACI-bar partner and psych+ACI- over the option +ACI-bid normally.+ACI- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4-And what, in your opinion, would a villain prefer? How would you know +AD4-he was a villain, if all he ever did was bid normally? +AD4- +AD4- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 21:09:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:09:41 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08479 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:09:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21446 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:25:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Equitable redress of Misinformation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : Subject: Equity in MI Cases Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of sample cases will illustrate the difference. Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the principles involved.) Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. Replies by email to Herman (who will forward copies to Steve) or post to the mailing list. Thanks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 21:10:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:17 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08495 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:09 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21476 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:13:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36022A50.13DCA14B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:39:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 12C3 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01BDE24E.9B54E300@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > We all know that different committees will come up with different > judgments, whether or not they have L12C3 to work with. Giving them > L12C3 just gives them some more options, so a larger number of different > committees will be needed before two committees will actually arrive at > the same outcome, but that is of no consequence. > > #### It may well be of consequence when the apperception of the average > player, confronted with even more substantial variation in AC ruling than > is now the case, is that such rulings are unfair. The average player will see his ruling only judged once, and he has no way of saying that 50% of A and 50% of B is any more or less fair than a score of A or B. Wrong argument. > Respect for Laws and > regulations requires a "consent of the governed" which is lost if it is > felt that AC's have a free hand to favour their friends or fellow members > of a clique or bridge elite. #### > Better argument, but one which holds exactly as much with or without L12C3. It has been stated already that ACBL and its members have no trust whatsoever in Appeal Committees. That has nothing to do with the fact that they can have L12C3 or not. > (snip) > > > Giving a judiciary the power to vary rulings does not make for a bad > judiciary ! > > #### But giving the power to a bad judiciary DOES make for bad rulings. > > Craig #### But that does not mean you should not give L12C3 to the AC, it means you should better select your ACs ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 21:10:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:36 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08509 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:29 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21502 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:13:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <360234AB.EA3DB9E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:23:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809161705.MAA23502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > Since you're going to the trouble of coming up with a formula I had better > describe a line of reasoning I think is useful in decisions of this sort. > As I said earlier the "post-priori" probability of the NOS choosing B, the > unsuccessful action, is 1, since they did choose it. Probabilities still > enter the picture, however. Bridge is full of uncertainties, in the bidding > and the play. A typical bidding decision is based on the player's own > estimate of its success. In the case in question let's say West estimated > he'd take nine tricks 60% of the time and 10 tricks 40% of the time. At > matchpoints he has a clear pass, given this evaluation. Actually, and this has no direct relevance to the rest of the discussion, a 40% game should be bid, when vulnerable at matchpoints. So you see, with the same information, you and I will bid differently, because I will take that risk, you won't. But there are eight other players out there, maybe 5 of which will judge the chance of game at more than 40%, and three others who will judge it at less. So 60% of the players do choose the game contract, 40% don't That is the basis on which we say the decision to go to game is 60%. > Further, it is not > at all the same thing to say that 60% of the time he'd pass and 40% of the > time he'd bid game. Once he came to this evaluation of the probabilities he > would pass 100% of the time, as he did. > Indeed, but others will come to different evaluation. When the one player in question has no basis on which to calculate his chances, then this relation between, "I judge the game to have 42% chance of success, so I will bid it 100% of the time" has no grounds. (whereas your argument below of finessing or playing for the drop CAN be calculated at 52%, so indeed an AC should accept the 52% line 100% of the time !) > The MI must affect the NOS's evaluation of the probabilities in order to > adjust. Let's say the committee judges that the correct information makes > the game 30% more likely to make than the MI did. Now this same player > would estimate that he could take 10 tricks 52% of the time (40% x 1.3), so > he would bid the game 100% of the time. (I've multiplied probabilities when > I could have been adding them. It depends on what the AC means when they > say "30% more likely to make." The figures are arbitrary in any case, so > adjust yours to suit.) > But the Committee is not judging that the CI would multiply the chances by 1.3. The Committee decides that with MI, 40% of the time, the player would bid game, and with CI, this becomes 70%, but not 100%. > This is one reason it's not relevant for the committee to say "he should > have bid game with the information he had" or "The Committee felt that the > pair should have reached 4S anyway." The committee may think that, given > the MI, game is 60% likely to succeed and with correct information game is > 75% likely to succeed. What's relevant to Law 40 is that the correct > information changed the odds in favor of the correct decision. The amount > of the change should be taken into account in Law 12C2. > L40 only speaks of damage. It should fall under AC jurisdiction to decide there is no damage. > To see that even a small change in the odds in the direction of the correct > decision may be relevant consider the case of a player who is having > trouble deciding what to do. If it takes him a while to make his choice > it's likely because he considers them close to 50-50. Eventually he judges > one 51% likely to succeed and the other 49%. Now a 3% change in the odds is > enough to sway his decision 100% of the time. > But if he is in doubt, then there may well be a 60% chance he will judge the one or the other alternativce to be the winning (51%) option. Only if you can prove that he judges the chance of success at 49% and therefor did B, and that you can PROVE the chance of success, given CI, to be 52%, can you correctly state that given CI, he would choose A 100% of the time. In play, these things can occur, but in bidding, they can not. > The committee probably won't, and perhaps shouldn't, take these kinds of > calculations into account explicitly. They take them into account > implicitly when they ask questions like "What was the most favorable result > that was likely?" in the absence of the MI. > No, these calculations can be taken into account in the deciding upon "no damage" (L40) or "varied score" (L12C3). You are right in stating that the L12C2 change is a complete one. > In case my reasoning is not clear consider a simple decision in playing a > hand. Most of us know that, with four to the queen out and nothing else to > go on, playing for the drop will work 52% of the time while finessing on > the second round will work 48% of the time. Most, however, will play for > the drop most of the time, as we should. > > AW And indeed if a MI tells you the queen is likely to be on one side, you are allowed to judge that the finesse is the correct option, and the AC will decide that close to 100% of the players would choose that line, whereas without the MI, the drop (at 52% chance) becomes the 100% chosen line. But as I said, it is very rare for you to be able to assign such precise percentages in bidding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 21:10:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:56 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08523 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:10:49 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21537 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:13:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <360236B3.F8ACAF38@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:32:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: open pairs lille X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > SNIP > > > It is easy to scramble a Mitchell in order to improve the balance. > > > > ######### It is not as easy as one might imagine to produce the sort > > of balance in a scrambled Mitchell that a properly constructed stanza > > Howell is capable of. ############ The difference between an unscrambled mitchell and a scrambled one, in terms of balance, is huge. The difference between a scrambled mitchell and a perfect balanced howell, is very much smaller. I would favour a solution such as Henk describes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 21:11:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:11:25 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08538 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:11:18 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21582 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:14:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <360237F6.90584E30@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:37:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171608.JAA11696@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: > > Counter-arguments usually simplify the problem down to two tables, > resulting in an IMP result that is divided by two. Herman would > have an answer for that, so don't think it automatically nullifies > his idea. > The answer is that in a team game, two pairs conspire to win, say a 10IMP difference. IN a pair game, what's wrong with giving the two conspiring pairs a +5IMP result each ? - which BTW is 10IMPs better than their opponents (who score -5IMPs). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 22:14:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:14:19 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08790 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:14:12 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12393 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918081846.007016a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:18:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980914134609.006f96f4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:38 PM 9/14/98 +0100, David wrote: > Your timing is wrong. It is the thought processes at the time of the >original infraction that are relevant. Which is more likely of these >two scenarios: > >I hold 2 HCP. I open out of turn, barring partner, knowing that I am >intending to psyche if possible next. > >I hold 18 HCP. I open out of turn, barring partner, knowing that I am >intending to bid 3NT if possible next. ...and later... > That's irrelevant: how did partner get barred? What were your thought >processes then? Oddly (since David wrote the above in rebuttal to my prior message on the subject), we seem to agree. I am arguing that this is the right question: "What were your thought processes"... "at the time of the original infraction"? Whereas the wrong question is "What would your thought processes have been if we assume that the infraction was intentional?", at least when we're convinced that it wasn't. I argue that there's a distinction between "I open out of turn, barring partner, knowing that I am intending to psych", which is a clear violation of L72B2, and "I open out of turn, and, after taking the penalty, decide that in the situation I've brought about my best chance now is to psych", which seems like exercising my rights under L72A5. The we-can't-have-mind-reading lobby won't like this, but it surely seems like L72A5 *requires* us to do some mind reading, by virtue of its explicit applicability only to "inadvertent infraction[s]". 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 Sep 18 22:24:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:24:39 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08871 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:24:32 +1000 Received: from default (client1598.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.152]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA25763; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:27:31 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:41:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde2f0$eae75720$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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 September 1998 17:42 Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced >> From: "David Burn" >> It is my belief that ........... the >> player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate >> deception. > >Where in the Laws may this "duty" be found? Does it also apply to >false cards by declarer? ++++ Hi Steve, and public........ I find myself thinking you are right, and also wrong. David is right in his view that standards should be set, and you are right that they are inadequately defined in the laws. It does seem now, though, that we can no longer go on playing the game according to the gentlemanly concepts of a Geoffrey Butler and broad expressions of principle. BLML produces copious evidence thay the attitude of many today is not to refrain from anything that the law allows, even for want of attention. And it does not work if significant personalities strive to achieve their view of standards by simply bending the law. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 22:24:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:24:40 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08872 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:24:32 +1000 Received: from default (client1598.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.152]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA25766; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:27:33 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:58:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde2f3$46b8fa20$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 Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. >Grattan Endicott writes: > >> WBF Meetings in Lille : other odds and ends >> from the minutes. ["Sundries".] > >> "No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law >> that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law >> 64 means the two trick penalty." > >What is the basis for this interpretation? >-- ++++ A Committee decision. My personal feeling is that the Committee seems not inclined to mitigate the pain of the law when the player has defied the requirement of this part of it. Specious "reasons" could be spun, but discussion in committee has not been so extended as to leave me with notes of arguments. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 22:28:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:28:14 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08906 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:28:07 +1000 Received: from default (client1598.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.152]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA25769; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:27:35 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "David Burn" Cc: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:12:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde2fd$a9d12060$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan EndicottDear sir, > >Axiom: NO DOUBT for me that 2D OBOOR was inadvertent. > >The moment you wrote that the case was from the juniors' trial >I became more stubborn in my opinion. ++++ not all young people are innocent++++ >First of all let's agree about the UI definition : >UI is defined in my bible as .."an Information which couldn't be >available if no infraction occurred ". +++++ no; perfectly legal questions, answers and so on can create UI. The one condition that is always the case is that the source of the information is Partner; so the law says, although in the extreme it ought perhaps also to extend to the remainder of the player's team-mates. But I have no problem in agreeing that the withdrawn call creates UI in this instance. +++++ +++ 72A5 is yet one more instance of the vagaries of the English usage the laws adopt. We do not really know how to take "after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction" - the usual belief is that it means after options have been explained and action selected and I doubt whether there is much of a case for the argument that wishes to interpret it as "when the effects of the penalty are exhausted", except that some such provision might arguably be better for the game. It is also of dubious intent when there is no penalty to pay. However, as the law stands if this infraction (OBOOT) was inadvertent, which DB does not necessarily accept, and if the penalty for it has been paid, as to which there can be some question albeit not in terms of the practice hitherto, then the player may reasonably argue that he has made a call advantageous to his side and is not barred from profiting from his own infraction. He is, of course, dished if the psychic bid is based upon partnership experience so if there is evidence of a history he goes to jail. ## Note for myself: have a look at the case for introducing exclusion of the abnormal into 72A5. ## ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 22:39:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:39:21 +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 WAA08959 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:39:15 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16131 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918084129.007f1e80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:41:29 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <01bde2b2$8566ba00$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 PM 9/17/98 -0500, Richard F Beye wrote: >Members vote for Unit board >Unit board votes for National Board >National Board votes policy In my unit, a nominating committee appointed by the unit president selects a slate of board members. There is, of course, a way to petition so that anybody can be placed on the ballot. But, I cannot recall this happening in at least 15 years. (In reality, the nominating committee struggles to find members from each area of the unit who are willing to serve on the board. But, that is another issue.) In my district there have been three contested elections in the last couple of years. In each case the candidate put forth by the nominating committee has won the election. I do not think this is merely coincidence. At both the unit and district level, I would guess that fewer than 5% of the membership know what the election process is. I would bet that at least half of the boardmembers in my unit believe they were appointed rather than elected. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 22:49:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:49:22 +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 WAA08988 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:49:16 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA17425 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980918085131.007fc860@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:51:31 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <199809180502.WAA06514@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:01 PM 9/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American >politics: > >The people vote for members of the City Council >The people vote for the city's Mayor Where I live the Council members select a Mayor from amongst themselves. >The people vote for the state's governing bodies >The people vote for the state's Governor Who then appoints administrators such as the Attorney General. Such appointments are approved by the state house and senate. >The people vote for members of the U. S. Congress >The people vote for President of the U. S. Who then appoints federal judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc. who then hire staff. Again, some of these appointments must be approved by the house and senate. But, to suggest most government officials are elected is simply not right. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 18 23:59:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:59:56 +1000 Received: from coyote.iupui.edu (coyote.iupui.edu [134.68.220.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09134 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:59:50 +1000 Received: from lynx.uits.iupui.edu (lynx.uits.iupui.edu [134.68.220.22]) by coyote.iupui.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/1.18IUPUIPO) with ESMTP id JAA02581 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by lynx.uits.iupui.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:02:53 -0500 Message-ID: <9D916278299FD111A7E100805FA7C2BAD39253@cheetah.uits.iupui.edu> From: "Siddiqui, Aslam" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:02:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:01 PM 9/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American >politics: >The people vote for President of the U. S. Actually people don't vote for the US President; the President is elected by their representatives. aslam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:03:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:03:16 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09149 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:03:10 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA15980 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918100746.0071496c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:07:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Extracts from Lille minutes of WBFLC. In-Reply-To: <01bde173$db797260$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 PM 9/16/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >Twelfth Extract > >" Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. > > Information that the player must play the penalty card >as the law requires is authorised and partner may vhoose >the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that >knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when >partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on >sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, for >example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the >suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a >different suit is a logical alternative. " This makes no sense at all. It says, quite clearly, that the lead of the x from KQJx when partner's ace is a penalty card is *not* "based on the sight of partner's penalty card". How can that be rationalized? The wording absent the examples would clearly suggest that one may only use the information that partner has a penalty card but not the knowledge of what it is. The examples contradict that. The examples suggest that the knowledge may not be used to decide what suit to lead but may be used to decide which card of a given suit to lead. That's ludicrous; either you can base your lead on knowing what the penalty card is or you can't. The WBFLC has only muddied the waters on this issue. Without this "clarification", it was open to debate whether the identity of partner's penalty card was AI or UI. Now the WBFLC seems to be saying that the answer is "it depends". Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see any comprehensible answer to the question "on what?". 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 Sep 19 00:05:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:05:01 +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 AAA09164 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:04:53 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-148.access.net.il [192.116.204.148]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA24754; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:05:45 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360268AB.B42F7953@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:05:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <199809171823.OAA08447@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Steve ...... As long as my Alzheimer allows me to remember , this case is the only one dealt in laws very clear : Law 59 . IMHO , the fact that Mr. Z has no cards in a suit , or has only that suit's cards in his hand , is AI for his partner , in spite of my UI definition , as avery special case . I think I can say that "there is a special Law (59) for this exception which strengthen my general definition " . Very interesting , but in Laws' ch. ONE there are no definitions for UI, MI ,AI and a lot of other important issues , while there are definitions for "trick", "pack" "suit" etc..... By the way , many players are angry that there are definitions for LHO & RHO but no def. for FO =front opponent !!!! just let us have a little bit of fun. Friendly Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Dany Haimovici > > UI is defined in my bible as .."an Information which couldn't be > > available if no infraction occurred ". > > Yes, I think you are wrong. > > Kaplan gave an example of L72A5 in action that went something like > this: EW defend, and East has a penalty card in hearts. Declarer > tells West to lead a heart, but he can't because he is void! This > is AI to East and is a result of the infraction, but if it defeats > the contract, that's perfectly OK. > > Here's my example: a player tries to open 1H, but he has missed the > opening 1S bid, and 1H is insufficient, so he bids 4H instead. Now the > withdrawn 1H call is UI, so partner correctly bases his play on partner > having a preemptive 4H bid. This time, that turns out to be lucky. > > I think the answer in the original case goes back to "could have > known," L72B1 or L23. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:06:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:06:13 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09182 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:06:07 +1000 Received: from [195.99.45.177] [195.99.45.177] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zK1CI-0001iz-00; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:07:45 +0100 From: David Burn To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:08:58 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: [snip] However, as the law stands if this infraction (OBOOT) was = inadvertent, which DB does not necessarily accept,=20 Apologies for lack of clarity, though I am not sure how I could have = expressed myself more plainly. I fully accept that the infraction was = inadvertent - but that is not the point. I also accept that at the time the = player committed the infraction, he had not calculated how it could, or = even that it could, work to his benefit. But that is not the point either. = The words of L72B1 appear to me to mean that we have no need to concern = ourselves with the actual thought processes of this particular player. We = need be concerned only with what those thought processes *could have been* = if the player were bent on doing wrong by breaking the laws to suit his own = ends. When a player actually does something that could have been done by a = deliberate evil-doer, and is not especially likely to have been done by one = whose heart is pure, that is good and sufficient justification to rule = against him. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:09:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:09:23 +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 AAA09200 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:09:17 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA24624; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:11:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024595; Fri Sep 18 09:11:27 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE2EC.74518260@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:09:42 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE2EC.74518260@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: blml , "'Jan Kamras'" Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:41:50 -0400 Encoding: 19 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Really Jan, I expect better from you. I know you CAN argue with intellignece, reason and persuasion. But such inflammatory tweaking of the American eagle's beak is offensive. We may be didactic and insular at times, but many of the arguments advanced for the "American" point of view have been measured, well-reasoned, and seeking to gain from the "rest-of-world" experience in determining the Law's future here. Debate if you will (and you usually do so well) but do not childishly dismiss those who disagree with you as lacking common sense. Could it be that it is you who is lacking in a sense of how things are perceived in our culture? Are you seeing things through Eurocentric glasses? Clear your vision and try to view from other perspectives. Let's leave the flame wars over on rgb. Craig (JAN wote in part) I'm starting to see more of the "US vs the rest of the world" in these discussions. The US is run by lawyers, for lawyers. Every written word is taken literally *and in isolation*. Common sense never enters the equation. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:24:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:24:06 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11494 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:24:00 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lc48o.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.24]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA32453 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918102531.006fcb2c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:25:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation In-Reply-To: <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 AM 9/18/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > >Subject: Equity in MI Cases > >Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity >in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. >Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of >sample cases will illustrate the difference. > >Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B >loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players >will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. >Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do >you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? >Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be >score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve >can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the >principles involved.) > >Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. >Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. >Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > I am quite content with L12C2. I adjust to the result of A in all three cases, since by your description, that is clearly the most favorable likely result, absent the MI. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:26:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:26:03 +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 AAA11509 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:25:57 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14575 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:29:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net Reply-To: Richard Lighton To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: New contributor In-Reply-To: <9D916278299FD111A7E100805FA7C2BAD39253@cheetah.uits.iupui.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aslam Siddiqui wrote . . .[snipped] Welcome Aslam! At least Herman and I recognize your name. However, you have failed in one of your duties as a new contributor to this group. Do you have any cats, and if so what are their names? -- Richard Lighton |"...some word that teems with hidden meaning-- (lighton@idt.net)| like 'Basingstoke' ..." Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 00:28:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:28:51 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11525 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:28:44 +1000 Received: from default (client089f.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.159]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA08039; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:31:46 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "anton witzen" , "David Stevenson" Subject: Final (?) extracts from minutes of WBFLC in Lille. Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde30a$81267040$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; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:41:38 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA17467 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918104558.00713d2c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:45:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 12C3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980916124120.006ec5a0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <01bde0b9$84c1b1e0$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:41 PM 9/16/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >But the open-ended instruction in L12C3 for the AC "to do equity", with no >procedural definition of what that means, is an invitation to abuse. For >some folks, "equity" just means a "fair decision" or a result that feels >right (to them, anyway). Herman's AC in #35 evidently felt that the NOS had >forfeited some of their equity by less-than-optimal defense, and used L12C3 >to express that judgement. Might some other AC feel that a "bad attitude" >by the NOS could justify a reduction in their compensation, in the name of >equity? Might it feel like an inequitable result to assign a severe penalty >to a beloved member of the bridge establishment, even when such a penalty >would be fairly automatic for others? > >Yes (I hear you already) it is true that these and myriad other extraneous >concerns will always be with us, carrying the baggage of inappropriate >influence upon the adjudication process. But when decisions can be held up >to the light of (comparatively) objective procedural standards, there is at >least some basis for accountability. That accountability disappears >altogether when the procedural standards are replaced by a non-specific >instruction to do whatever feels best. Whether you share Herman's feelings >about equity in #35 or not, the right of his AC to adjust the score however >they saw fit is guaranteed by L12C3, which also provides an effective cloak >against the intrusive criticisms of nosy parkers like me. Mike's comments capture the anti-L12C3 case perfectly. Yes, there is perforce subjectivity in applying L12C2. But subjective decisions are what ACs are for. If the laws provided genuinely objective criteria for dealing with infractions, we wouldn't have ACs; the only cause for appealing a TDs ruling would be if the TD erred in reading the law, and that's specifically not within the purview of ACs today. Guidelines don't eliminate subjective judgments, but they do provide a context in which those judgments can be evaluated, criticized and debated for the purpose of helping others make better (and, yes, more consistent) subjective judgments in the future. I'm a lot more comfortable with trying to be objective in my evaluation, criticism and debate over whether a particular result was "the most favorable result that was likely" (for example) than over whether it "did equity". A criterion like "do equity" is useless because it is self-satisfying, i.e. it allows the AC to argue, appropriately, that a decision was perforce legal *because* they made it; there is no such thing as a wrong decision. I don't like rules that justify decision-makers' claims that their judgment was right because they say it was right; end of discussion (unless, of course, I'm the one making the decisions). P.S. I weigh in only now because, when this thread started, I really had no position for or against L12C3 in the ACBL. After reading the many thoughtful comments on the subject, I have decided that the ACBL is probably right in opting out of using it. Helping folks like me evaluate questions like this is what BLML is for. Thank you, everyone. 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 Sep 19 00:58:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:58:53 +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 AAA11648 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:58:45 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA22668 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA09190 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809181502.LAA09190@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > The we-can't-have-mind-reading lobby won't like this, Right you are! > but it surely seems > like L72A5 *requires* us to do some mind reading, by virtue of its explicit > applicability only to "inadvertent infraction[s]". Not if we assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that all infractions are inadvertent. Nor are we powerless to adjust scores in cases of abuse. (See my upcoming response to David Burn.) If we want rules against psyching after partner is barred, then we better write them down in black and white. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 01:08:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:08:25 +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 BAA11705 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:08:17 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA18516 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918111252.0071758c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:12:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeals 1 and 26 In-Reply-To: <36002086.BE420B94@home.com> References: <3606a441.3988725@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:33 PM 9/16/98 -0700, Jan wrote: >What Jesper is alluding to above is not the way to go imo, since L12C2 >specifies to choose "the most (un)favourable", which is not at all >ambiguous and is easy to calculate. What leaves room for judgement is >the selection of results from which this is drawn. This is where I gain >the impression that many would instinctively find that equity is better >served if "compromises" could be found. >Let's say the table-result is NS 3D -1 = NS -50. MI existed, affecting >EW's chances to find their H-fit. They in fact are cold for 4H. TD >adjusts to NS -620. NS appeal. The AC agrees L12C2 is triggered but have >problems establishing the "likelyhood" and "probability" of EW reaching >game as opposed to resting in 3H. >Some members feel 4H is not likely but somewhat probable. They would be >forced to rule NS -620, EW +170. >Others feel 4H is quite likely. They are forced to rule NS -620, EW >+620. >In either case NS gets -620 so that seems "equitable" to this AC. >Rather than forcing either EW +620 or +170 by majority or whatever(noone >in the two groups is very adamant in their judgements), wouldn't most >involved (including the players) feel equity is served if AC can go to >L12C3 and give EW a score somewhere inbetween? Perhaps in theory, but not in real life. If some members of the AC feel that 4H was "not likely" while others think it was "quite likely", their job should be to discuss, analyze, debate, and decide which is correct. Those involved will not feel that equity was served if the AC decides (as, in real life, many will, and many who don't will be perceived to have) that making a correct decision will be time-consuming and difficult, so they should instead just "split the difference" and go home early, rendering a "compromise" decision that doesn't satisfy either side. If we empower ACs under L12C3, "Let's give 'em +395 and go home" will replace "Let's give 'em A+ and go home" in the ACBL. Of course, that might be an improvement... 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 Sep 19 01:32:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:32:11 +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 BAA11793 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:32:04 +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 LAA19627 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918113640.007163f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <002f01bde1e3$df034080$4b2e63c3@david-burn> 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 LAA19627 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:35 AM 9/17/98 +0100, David wrote: >Second, my interpretation of what is meant in the Laws by "could have >known" appears at variance with many opinions expressed by BLML >subscribers. As I hope I have made clear in what follows, there is no >question in my mind that the player at the table did not act from >nefarious motives; he opened 2D out of turn in all innocence, and when >1D was opened on his left, his action in overcalling 1H was equally >innocent in that he was acting in accordance with his own highly >imaginative approach to the game. But that is wholly irrelevant in >terms of what the Laws at present require. Eric Landau's view that >"could have known" is "French for 'did know, but we don't want to >accuse him of acting on that basis'", appears to me singularly >unhelpful. The Laws, rightly, are not concerned with what a player did >or did not actually know. They are concerned with what a player >actually did, and with whether the action taken could have been taken >by an out-and-out villain. If it could, it is rightly subject to the >most severe penalty that the Laws will permit. ...and later... >It is perfectly clear that in this case, there was no question that >South had acted with nefarious intent; his opening bid out of turn was >a genuine error, and there is no suggestion that he actually did it in >order to be able to psyche hearts with impunity in the later auction. >However, the legal question in such cases is never: what was South=92s >actual intent? Rather, the question is: could a South bent on >wrong-doing have acted in the way that the actual South player did? I cannot accept the assertion that "the legal question... is never... actual intent". Indeed, L72, which is what we're debating here, seems quite clearly written to *require* judgments of actual intent. It repeatedly uses the phrase "inadvertent infraction". It explicitly forbi= ds "infring[ing] a law intentionally". If actual intent cannot be considere= d, these phrases are meaningless. How can anyone be expected to decide whether an infraction was "inadvertent" or "intentional" *without* judgin= g "actual intent"? 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 Sep 19 01:32:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:32:33 +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 BAA11801 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:32:14 +1000 From: bills@cshore.com Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 5505000 ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:30:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:32:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Message-Id: <199809181630.5505000@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >By the way , many players are angry that there are definitions >for LHO & RHO but no def. for FO =front opponent !!!! >just let us have a little bit of fun. The correct term is CHO, Center Hand Opponent. ;) Presumably the WBFLBC will consider rectifying this along with the gross injustice of denying a player the right to double his partner for penalties on an auction such as the following, in which I had the misfortune to be opener just last week: 1H (P) 2NT (balanced LR or better) (P) 3D (intermediate) (P) 4NT (RKC) (P) 5C (0 or 3 KC) (P) 7H (P) P (7S) 7NT Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 01:45:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:45:38 +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 BAA11874 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:45:32 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.242 (pool-207-205-159-233.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.233]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA00667 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:48:34 -0700 Message-ID: <36028CE8.23F7@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:42:12 -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: Equitable redress of Misinformation References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity > in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. > Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of > sample cases will illustrate the difference. > > Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B > loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players > will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. > Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do > you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? > Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be > score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve > can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the > principles involved.) > > Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. > Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. > Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > A, all three cases. This is the current American rule. Why should the NOs lose the opportunity to go right; they lost that opportunity because of the OS actions? Plus, with this rule, there's no need for such foolishness as 666's convention disruption penalties, etc. Misinform, and expect to lose if the misinformation affects the hand. --JRM > Replies by email to Herman (who will forward copies to Steve) or post > to the mailing list. Thanks. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 01:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:55:49 +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 BAA11913 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:55:44 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.242 (pool-207-205-159-233.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.233]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA01214 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:58:43 -0700 Message-ID: <36028F49.A03@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:52:21 -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: psyche when partner is silenced References: <199809181502.LAA09190@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Something that appears to have been lost in this discussion: Isn't 1H *purely* lead-directing when partner is barred? It would not occur to me to bid any number of spades, or anything but 1H (or 2H), given the 6=0=2=5 trash I've got. As to the main issue (I know I'm late), I think it is a legitimate bridge issue as to whether the psycher could have known bidding 2D OOT would be helpful. In the given circumstances, I can't conceive of this action helping more than hurting; I think it's a big loser in the long run. Therefore, I'd rule no infraction; psycher could *not* have known that his action would be better than bidding the hand correctly. --JRM Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Eric Landau > > The we-can't-have-mind-reading lobby won't like this, > > Right you are! > > > but it surely seems > > like L72A5 *requires* us to do some mind reading, by virtue of its explicit > > applicability only to "inadvertent infraction[s]". > > Not if we assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that all infractions > are inadvertent. Nor are we powerless to adjust scores in cases of > abuse. (See my upcoming response to David Burn.) > > If we want rules against psyching after partner is barred, then we > better write them down in black and white. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 01:59:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:59:59 +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 BAA11943 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:59:13 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-189.access.net.il [192.116.204.189]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA08184; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:01:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360283C0.B4A59BB2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:01:04 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that in modern high level bidding ,almost every call (not only bids) have an accurate meaning - number of cards , exact number of HCP, a well-defined card , etc ..... And every call has an accurate different meaning , according to calls made by opponents and partner ....... This is the reason why it is very difficult to have a well-defined definition for "convention" . IMO the basic definition of "convention" is ..." a set of agreements , named together by one name (to be more concise and explaining quickly).....". For sure , a set can contain one element only........See about 200 conventions in Granovetter's booklet.... I'll try to put it in a more accurate my suggestion for "convention"'s definition during the next days , hoping that until next WBFLC's meeting - this century ..???...- it will be ready. Dany Grattan wrote: > > 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: Steve Willner > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > > Date: 21 May 1998 18:06 > > > > > > Fair enough, but I don't see how this applies. The convention > > definition seems crystal clear to me. The problem is that the result > > is so astonishing that nobody believes what the definition says > > ++==++ Fifth extract from Minutes of WBFLC meetings in Lille. > > " Definition of 'Convention' > > Consideration was given to the definition of 'convention'. The > Committee held the definition in the laws to be adequate. In > writing the definition the intention was not to deem it conventional > if a natural opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general > bridge knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than the one > named. " ~~ Grattan ~~ ++==++ > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 02:24:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:24:59 +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 CAA12172 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:24:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA28055 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA09310 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:28:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809181628.MAA09310@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Most of the following was emailed privately before I realized David Burn's message had been sent to the list. This is slightly modified and extended. Sorry for the extra copy, David.] > From: "David Burn" > +AD4-I don't see why the objection to L23 -- it seems synonymous with > L72B1 > +AD4-in this case. > > I don't have a strong view about this. L23 appears to me to cater for > situations where one +ACI-signs off+ACI- by first committing an irregularity, > then making a bid which might not otherwise end the auction. I agree. It's a subset of L72B1, which is new in 1997, while L23 existed before. Anyway, no big deal. You can reach the same result with either law. > Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx > > Partner passes. What action do you take? > > What you would like to do, of course, is open 3NT and play there. > Unhappily, your partnership has the agreement that this opening bid > denies more than one side guard... > Now, there has been a fair amount of what I can only describe as > bleating about this kind of thing on the list so far. Apparently, if > anyone actually did this, we would take no action at all. Good grief, I hope not!!! I think most of us would adjust in an instant under either L23 or 72B1, and I think many would at least consider a PP as well. And I hope everyone would advise the player that this is a really bad idea and not to come back if he is ever going to do it again. > I say +ACI-it could not be more obvious+ACI- - it could, and the case under > discussion is an example. We simply disagree about the two cases being similar. > South on the hand in question did not intend to psyche hearts when he > opened 2D out of turn+ADs- therefore > Following his opening out of turn, he is at liberty to psyche hearts > despite the fact that his infraction has removed a very large element > of risk from such an action. This is not my argument, and I haven't seen anyone else suggest it. I'm afraid you are constructing a straw man. > As far as the Laws are concerned, it makes absolutely no difference at > all at what point the notion of bidding hearts actually +ACo-did+ACo- occur to > South. Of course. > The Laws say, in effect, that if the notion of bidding hearts > naturally +ACo-could have+ACo- occurred to South before he opened 2D out of > turn, and if it +ACo-could have+ACo- occurred to him that silencing his > partner before bidding hearts would work to his side's benefit, then > his combined actions are illegal. I agree except that the test is whether the action is "likely" work to his side's benefit. Any stupid thing _could_ work on a given day, but that's not the test. > and he writes this despite having agreed with my opinion that the Laws > are not concerned with intent, only with actions. +ACI-Wished+ACI- is simply > another expression for +ACI-intended+ACI- above, No, it isn't at all! I'm sorry to have been so unclear. The question is whether a villain would expect to be better off committing the infraction or with normal bidding. Which is more _likely_ to work in his favor? Of course he will "wish" to take the action that stands to produce the most gain, or at least we will assume so for adjudication. > Our bridge judgments do not matter+ADs- what you or I might do on this > hand is a complete irrelevance. Oh, come on. The test in L23 and 72B1 is _likely_. That implies bridge judgment. As I said above, any foolish thing can work on a given day, and it might occur to someone. But the legal test is entirely different. That's why we allow "blast 3NT" after a typical infraction (say the out-of-turn opener had a balanced 17) but not after your example above. The difference is bridge judgment about what a villain would have "wished" (in my sense) to do before the infraction. > if the South player's approach to the game is such that making a > natural bid in hearts might occur to him (and there is strong evidence > that it might, since it actually did)+ADs- and > > if it might occur to him that benefit to his side might derive from > having partner unable to participate in whatever auction might follow > his natural bid in hearts, then his combined actions are not legal > under L72B1 (oh, all right, and L23, and in my minority opinion L73E > as well). I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree with the above. The test is _likely_. > Does anyone believe that South would have > overcalled 1D with 1H had he not committed the infraction of opening > out of turn? He might well have considered it, I think. But I don't see the relevance. The legal test is what is likely to gain. In particular, is "bar partner, then psych" _likely_ to be superior to "bid normally." Deciding which one is better is a matter of bridge judgment on a given hand. Put it this way: if you offered the player (after the 2D OOT but before the opening bid on his right) the chance to take back the 2D bid, cancel all penalties, and everyone at the table forgets it happened, would he take the offer? I think so; I think it's right to show black suits and let partner pick one. But if your bridge judgment is different, then go ahead and adjust the score. > So what? Do you have agreements that will enable you to deal with a > psych by a player whose partner is silenced? Do you think it > reasonable that every pair should have such agreements? It wouldn't be ridiculous to ban psychs after an infraction that silences partner, but I don't see any such laws or regulations in existence now. It might be interesting to debate what form such restrictions might take. I'm not even sure how such a rule could be written. > If the risk that partner might be deceived has been > removed because you have done something illegal, then you are not (in > my view) entitled to pratcise deception of this kind. This may be a sound view, but I don't see it reflected in the Laws. It seems to me this strongly held view of yours, reasonable and perhaps popular as it is, is coloring your entire view of the situation. But we have to rule on existing laws and regulations. > Only if you do not believe that South has (in effect) taken unfair > advantage of the position in which he was placed through his own > infraction. Since I believe strongly that he did precisely that, and > since I believe that such actions are a breach of +ACI-order and > discipline+ACI-, then a disciplinary penalty seems to me obvious. Well, if you believe it is illegal to psych after an infraction that bars partner, then a PP is indeed in order. I simply don't find any such rule on the books. > I do not consider it appropriate for a player > to take advantage of his own infraction in order to make a deceptive > call or play from which the risk has - solely through the infraction - > been removed. I could give examples in other situations -- say a false lead or signal when partner has a penalty card -- where you might feel different. Or maybe you would still feel the same. Either way, if your view is to prevail, I think it has to be written into law or regulation. > If without the infraction and what followed from it,... > has not declarer been damaged as a > consequence of the infraction, and is he not entitled to redress? I'd say this is what L72A5 addresses. > And what, in your opinion, would a villain prefer? How would you know > he was a villain, if all he ever did was bid normally? As above, a villain presumably prefers whatever will give him the best score -- a question of bridge judgment. If all he does is bid normally, what's the problem? In another thread: From: "Grattan Endicott" ---begin quote from LC minutes (?)--- The player is not vulnerable against vulnerable opponents. He picks up a Yarborough and dealer (RHO) passes, the player passes and LHO opens 1NT(12-14). Our player then finds he has a hand from the wrong board and calls the TD, who cancels his call. He now finds that his true hand has a 22 count. Under Law 17D he passes and LHO repeats his call (footnote to Law 17D). The Committee ruled: Both the marked change in the meaning of the call in the example and the fact that information from offender's withdrawn call was used meant that the action of the player is illegal. ---end quote--- This is another example that belongs in the same thread, although the circumstances are somewhat different. Partner is not barred, but an inadvertent infraction (Who looks at the wrong cards on purpose?) has put a player in a surprisingly advantageous position for a psych (pass in this case). I agree with the LC intent that this is not what the game is about, and the player should not keep his score. I disagree with part of their justification for the ruling. The pass did not have a different meaning; it still ostensibly showed a weak hand. (You didn't forget to tell us they were playing forcing pass, did you, Grattan? :-) ) But now it didn't correctly _describe_ the hand held. Nothing wrong with that! (Yes, some people think there is something wrong with it; too bad.) What is wrong is that L16C2 has been violated, as the LC correctly says. When the offender's original pass was cancelled, so was LHO's bid of 1NT. That bid is UI to the offender. (And the TD should have told him so. I trust all TD's will get in the habit of mentioning that from now on.) Bidding something on his 22-count is surely a LA, and the pass is suggested by the 1NT bid, so passing is illegal. A simple case, and I'm astonished that the LC tries to make it more complicated by stating something (change in meaning) that isn't true. Query: what should the adjusted score be? A 12C1 artificial score or a 12C2 assigned score after an assumed 2NT (or whatever) opening? And should there be a PP if the TD forgot to mention the UI part of the ruling? (If he did mention it, a PP seems pretty obvious.) (I'll be away on business until September 28 and likely pretty busy for a few days after that, so you have heard the last from me for a while. No doubt everyone is greatly relieved.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 02:35:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:35:34 +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 CAA12218 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:35:27 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA13555; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:36:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013396; Fri Sep 18 11:35:54 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE300.A4DA0A60@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:34:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE300.A4DA0A60@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Siddiqui, Aslam'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:26:53 -0400 Encoding: 37 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is only technically correct. While the President is elected by "electors" selected by the people of each state, these electors are pre-pledged to a specific candidate, thereby creating an indirect system that almost always works the same as direct election by popular vote. The potential for abuse does exist, which is why reform of or elimination of the electoral college has been suggested repeatedly. As a practical matter, though, the President IS elected by the people and is answerable to them, with thier representatives in the legislature empowered to remove him by impeachment if he is guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors". Not one voter in 10,000 considers that (s)he is voting for members of the electoral college; we consider we are voting for a President. In any case, the "representatives" of the people are generally regarded to be those in Congress, not the largely ceremonial and ephemeral electoral college. ---------- From: Siddiqui, Aslam[SMTP:asiddiqu@iupui.edu] Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:02 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) At 10:01 PM 9/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American >politics: >The people vote for President of the U. S. Actually people don't vote for the US President; the President is elected by their representatives. aslam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 03:29:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 03:29:39 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12415 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 03:29:32 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA13436 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980918133409.007049b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:34:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980918085131.007fc860@maine.rr.com> References: <199809180502.WAA06514@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:51 AM 9/18/98 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 10:01 PM 9/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >>The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American >>politics: >> >>The people vote for members of the City Council >>The people vote for the city's Mayor > >Where I live the Council members select a Mayor from amongst themselves. > >>The people vote for the state's governing bodies >>The people vote for the state's Governor > >Who then appoints administrators such as the Attorney General. Such >appointments are approved by the state house and senate. > >>The people vote for members of the U. S. Congress >>The people vote for President of the U. S. > >Who then appoints federal judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc. who >then hire staff. Again, some of these appointments must be approved by the >house and senate. > >But, to suggest most government officials are elected is simply not right. But *all* legislators are. Marv's point, I believe, was that in the U.S. we vote for legislators and chief executives (who have a legislative function through the power to send up legislation, veto it, etc.) at all levels of government. We don't vote only at the lowest level of jurisdiction and remand to those we elected the sole power to determine who will govern us at other levels of jurisdiction. Let's not muddy the waters by failing to distinguish between the officials who make the laws and those who carry them out. In an American-style democracy, lawmakers at all levels are elected by the people. ACBL Unit, District and National board members make the rules. Attornies General, federal judges, ambassadors, etc., are analogous to ACBL TDs -- their job is to enforce laws made by others. Those who would like to see the ACBL become more democratic believe that members of the BoD should be elected by their constituents. Nobody is arguing for election of TDs. One can easily make the case that the ACBL should not be a democratic organization, but I don't see any reasonable case that it is. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 03:39:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 03:39:24 +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 DAA12450 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 03:39:18 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.102]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980918174151.NKTA3286@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:41:51 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" Cc: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:39:21 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde32b$450e35e0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >+++ 72A5 is yet one more instance of the vagaries of the English >usage the laws adopt. We do not really know how to take "after the >offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent >infraction" This line seems pretty clear to me. >## Note for myself: have a look at the case for introducing >exclusion of the abnormal into 72A5. ## ~ Grattan ~ +++ In reading L72A5, does 'any call or play advantageous . . .' specifically allow the abnormal? It seems so. Baring CONCLUSIVE evidence that the OBOOT was meant to create this situation we must rule the call inadvertent. Further, law allows continuation to our advantage once the penalty is paid, i.e. partner is silenced. As a late comer to this discussion I do not yet understand why we are all having trouble understanding the word 'any' as written in 72A5. The player making this call is certainly proceding at his own risk. The issue of sportsmanship, in this particular example(actual or perceived), may be distasteful to all or most of us, does not seem to be addressed in the laws. That is my pence-worth. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 04:09:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:09:15 +1000 Received: from mjollnir.net.unc.edu (mjollnir.net.unc.edu [152.2.145.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12586 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:09:09 +1000 Received: (from daniel@localhost) by mjollnir.net.unc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA03041; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:12:02 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13826.41586.646642.35825@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:12:02 -0400 (EDT) From: daniel@unc.edu To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re:New contributor In-Reply-To: References: <9D916278299FD111A7E100805FA7C2BAD39253@cheetah.uits.iupui.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.61 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton writes: > However, you have failed in one of your duties as a new contributor > to this group. > > Do you have any cats, and if so what are their names? I do not know whether I have much to contribute to this group, but I am interested in the discussion. I will go back to lurking after sending this off. At the obvious risk of offending many here ... I do not have cats and I do not particularly like cats. My feelings about cats are purely due to household politics when I was young. My sister had cats but, somehow, I usually ended up being forced to do all the work taking care of those cats. It's nothing personal against the cats. Daniel Jackson Chapel Hill, NC From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 04:10:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:10:31 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12600 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:10:26 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-47.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.95]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20000; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3602A214.4718A47B@idt.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:10:28 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Declarer leads from hand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following situation came up at the club the other day, and the only law book available was a copy of the 1987 laws, with updates dating to 1990. Declarer (a quite weak player) was in dummy but led a diamond from her hand. LHO immediately said, "You're in the Dummy." Rho subsequently (perhaps two seconds later?) said "I'll accept the lead." Only then was the director called. None of us knew just who had what rights in this situation. I hope this isn't too trivial for the list, but there seemed to be no written source of guidance at the club. The FLB says either player can accept the lead, but it seems that one player did not, while the other did. Surely they are not allowed to consult on the matter. Anyone? Irv P.S. We have added a Yorkshire Terrier (named Sammy) to our mix. Since he's only about 6 or 7 pounds, and actually gets along with the cats fairly well, can I get half-credit? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 04:18:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:18:38 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12666 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:18:31 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:21:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3602A543.989E2EF3@home.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:24:03 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <01BDE2EC.74518260@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You're right abt my posting being unneccesarily inflammatory Craig, and I apologize to all if it was taken as saying that people who disagree with me have no common sense. This is neither what I said, nor what I meant. I did mean that US politicians/law-makers *assume* that citizens have no common sense, need protection from everything, and have the right to sue anyone who hasn't spelled out every potential danger in any activity they undertake. Been here - seen that! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 05:24:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:24:33 +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 FAA12824 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:24:28 +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 PAA03736 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809181927.PAA13361@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Defenders revoke then declarer concedes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This came close to happening at the club last night. West has revoked by discarding on a club trick, and it has become established. Declarer, unaware of the revoke, concedes some tricks which he would have had to lose anyway, and it is possible that West either will or will not win a trick with a club. Is the revoke penalty one trick or two? -- 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 Sep 19 05:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:27:06 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12873 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:26:56 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14434 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:26:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809181726.MAA14434@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:26:35 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye > > Members vote for Unit board > Unit board votes for National Board > National Board votes policy > > It really happens this way > I don't dispute that it does. [You should have added, I think, that none of the Administrative officers are elected by the membership, so I think it _was_ fair of me to say that most ACBL officials are appointed/elected by other officials. BTW, I don't necessarily think this is bad.] But this does not change any of my claims: a) Most members have no idea how this process works. I will gladly wager money that the majority of ACBL members do not know who their Unit Board Members are, do not know when the next election will be, do not know how they can vote in such an election, do not know how they could run for office if they were so inclined, do not know that their Unit board will choose a BOD member, and do not know what the BOD does. b) The ACBL does not do _anything_ to change the facts in 'a'. They do not publicize unit elections. They do not publicly solicit people to run or to vote. They do not emphasize the importance of these offices. Not only do they not do so, at least _my_ unit does not do so either. I don't live in any of the largest cities of my Unit, and so I am obviously regarded as not important enough to be told what is going on. In a way, I'm not blaming the ACBL for this. I'm sure most people wouldn't bother to vote even if they knew about it. I quite fully and openly admit that I have not taken any steps to go out of my way to secure any of this information. I'm just stating how things look from here. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 05:35:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:35:59 +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 FAA12920 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:35:53 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.233 (pool-207-205-159-233.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.233]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA13368 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:38:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3602C2E7.2392@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:30:33 -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: Declarer leads from hand References: <3602A214.4718A47B@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > The following situation came up at the club the other day, and the only > law book available was a copy of the 1987 laws, with updates dating to > 1990. Declarer (a quite weak player) was in dummy but led a diamond > from her hand. LHO immediately said, "You're in the Dummy." Rho > subsequently (perhaps two seconds later?) said "I'll accept the lead." > Only then was the director called. None of us knew just who had what > rights in this situation. I hope this isn't too trivial for the list, > but there seemed to be no written source of guidance at the club. The > FLB says either player can accept the lead, but it seems that one player > did not, while the other did. Surely they are not allowed to consult on > the matter. Anyone? > > Irv > I saw something somewhere (I forget where) which I believe is the best solution. LHO's statement is one calling attention to the infraction, but does not indicate either acceptance or rejection of the lead. At this point, either defender may state that they accept or reject the lead (preferably after calling the director). So, RHO's acceptance stands. --JRM > > P.S. We have added a Yorkshire Terrier (named Sammy) to our mix. Since > he's only about 6 or 7 pounds, and actually gets along with the cats > fairly well, can I get half-credit? What? A dog vs. a cat? I give 20 credits, and would give you more if the dog ate the cats. I've met some good cats, but most are evil. Give me a big dog any day. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 05:58:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:58:02 +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 FAA12982 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 05:57:55 +1000 Received: from client26db.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.219] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zK6iB-0004MG-00; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:01:00 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde33d$501c8b00$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 Hi there Irv. The way I was taught to rule in this situation, as it actually happened at your table, is to rule that LHO pointed out that Declarer had committed an infraction. LHO did not then say "and I would like you to lead from the correct hand" (If he had then that would have been IT.) However as far as accepting the lead from the wrong hand is concerned, RHO expressed the wish to accept it, before LHO had done other than pointing out the infraction. When it comes to accepting, or rejecting the lead from the wrong had, whoever speaks first, speaks for the partnership Law 10C2 tells us that where there are options subsequent to an irregularity infractions partners may not consult. Penny, my 15yr old Toy Poodle sends greetings to Sammy. She gets on well with other dogs, and cats too. She does however tend to be nervous of anthing smaller than herself. -----Original Message----- From: Irwin J Kostal To: BLML Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 7:53 PM Subject: Declarer leads from hand >The following situation came up at the club the other day, and the only >law book available was a copy of the 1987 laws, with updates dating to >1990. Declarer (a quite weak player) was in dummy but led a diamond >from her hand. LHO immediately said, "You're in the Dummy." Rho >subsequently (perhaps two seconds later?) said "I'll accept the lead." >Only then was the director called. None of us knew just who had what >rights in this situation. I hope this isn't too trivial for the list, >but there seemed to be no written source of guidance at the club. The >FLB says either player can accept the lead, but it seems that one player >did not, while the other did. Surely they are not allowed to consult on >the matter. Anyone? > >Irv > >P.S. We have added a Yorkshire Terrier (named Sammy) to our mix. Since >he's only about 6 or 7 pounds, and actually gets along with the cats >fairly well, can I get half-credit? > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 06:05:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:05:08 +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 GAA13013 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:05:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-189.access.net.il [192.116.204.189]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA06019; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:06:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3602BD47.17D7BCC3@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:06:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bills@cshore.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <199809181630.5505000@cshore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes Bill , I agree with your all suggestions , but for the case bellow I think there will be a footnote too : ...." in special cases one is allowed to use a baseball stick after doubling his partner ......" Dany bills@cshore.com wrote: > > >By the way , many players are angry that there are definitions > >for LHO & RHO but no def. for FO =front opponent !!!! > >just let us have a little bit of fun. > > The correct term is CHO, Center Hand Opponent. ;) Presumably the WBFLBC will > consider rectifying this along with the gross injustice of denying a player > the right to double his partner for penalties on an auction such as the > following, in which I had the misfortune to be opener just last week: > > 1H (P) 2NT (balanced LR or better) (P) > 3D (intermediate) (P) 4NT (RKC) (P) > 5C (0 or 3 KC) (P) 7H (P) > P (7S) 7NT > > Cheers, > > Bill Segraves > Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 06:24:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:24:54 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13102 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:24:48 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01364 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:27:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) In-Reply-To: <199809181726.MAA14434@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > a) Most members have no idea how this process works. I will > gladly wager money that the majority of ACBL members do not know who their > Unit Board Members are, do not know when the next election will be, do not > know how they can vote in such an election, do not know how they could run > for office if they were so inclined, do not know that their Unit board > will choose a BOD member, and do not know what the BOD does. Our Unit (106, Northern NJ and Rockland County NY) does what I'm sure a number of others do. 1. We put out a Newsletter quarterly and send it to every houshold that has members. 2. Among other things, it lists all the board members and the phone numbers of any who are heads of committees. That's most of them. 3. Once a year the nominating committee puts a notice in the Newsletter asking for interested parties to put forward their credentials. 4. Every member gets a voting slip in the mail. Admittedly there is a slate selected by the nominating committee, but there is room for write-in candidates, and given the few votes that are actually returned it would be very easy to get a place on a write-in campaign. Whether people actually read the Newsletter is another matter, but I don't think we could reasonably do more. I agree that most people probably don't know how the district board gets elected, or the district's representatives to the National Board. -- Richard Lighton |"...some word that teems with hidden meaning-- (lighton@idt.net)| like 'Basingstoke' ..." Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 06:28:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:28:20 +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 GAA13131 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:28:13 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-189.access.net.il [192.116.204.189]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA14784; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:30:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3602C2F2.D939E28E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:30:42 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: David Burn , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <01bde2fd$a9d12060$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Grattan Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please > > >Dear sir, > > > >Axiom: NO DOUBT for me that 2D OBOOR was inadvertent. > > > >The moment you wrote that the case was from the juniors' trial > >I became more stubborn in my opinion. > ++++ not all young people are innocent++++ I didn't mean innocence or "blacky....." , I just meant that the young generation of top players , at national and international level use for sure the agreement of lead direction bid , after a weak two opening bid...... > > >First of all let's agree about the UI definition : > >UI is defined in my bible as .."an Information which couldn't be > >available if no infraction occurred ". > > +++++ no; perfectly legal questions, answers and so on can create > UI. The one condition that is always the case is that the source of > the information is Partner; so the law says, although in the extreme ......and what about a whispered remark from the adjacent table ?? it doesn't come from my partner . am I allowed to use it as AI .. as much as I remember it is forbidden by Law 16B ..... > it ought perhaps also to extend to the remainder of the player's > team-mates. But I have no problem in agreeing that the > withdrawn call creates UI in this instance. +++++ > > +++ 72A5 is yet one more instance of the vagaries of the English > usage the laws adopt. We do not really know how to take "after the > offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent > infraction" - the usual belief is that it means after options have > been explained and action selected and I doubt whether there is > much of a case for the argument that wishes to interpret it as > "when the effects of the penalty are exhausted", except that some > such provision might arguably be better for the game. It is also of > dubious intent when there is no penalty to pay. IMHO there is a very minor problem with the very fine details of L75A5 , but for sure you are not allowed to produce another infraction , immediately after the first one was ruled by the TD... > However, as the law stands if this infraction (OBOOT) was > inadvertent, which DB does not necessarily accept, and if the > penalty for it has been paid, as to which there can be some question > albeit not in terms of the practice hitherto, then the player may > reasonably argue that he has made a call advantageous to his side > and is not barred from profiting from his own infraction. He is, of > course, dished if the psychic bid is based upon partnership > experience so if there is evidence of a history he goes to jail. > > ## Note for myself: have a look at the case for introducing > exclusion of the abnormal into 72A5. ## ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 06:46:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:46:53 +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 GAA13260 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:46:47 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA20331; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:49:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020317; Fri Sep 18 15:49:14 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE324.07FD23C0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:47:32 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE324.07FD23C0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:09:15 -0400 Encoding: 62 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When members vote for unit board in 168 (d4) they can either ratify the slate chosen by the board appointed nominating committee or abstain. Nominations from the floor are not permitted. Nominating petitions to contend against the anointed nominees are not accepted within 15 days of the election. Small wonder the friends of the exisiting board are always elected to the board. How very democratic! No wonder we are aging and ingrown as an orgnaisation. I suspect much the same sort of incestuous process is followed in other units and in higher level elections. Even if it were not, this is rather like having the unicameral legislator elected by state legislatures as the senate used to be. The process does not encourage the rank and file member to take any interest in governance of the league. Whether this is a good or a bad thing may be open to debate, as most just do not care...they want to complain rather than participate in the work of the organisation anyway. But it is absurd to believe that the Board represents the views of the average member. The average member often has no views of most matters the Bord must deal with; the members who care but are outside the clique aere usually unheard from. ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 11:15 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Grant Sterling wrote: snipped > Such people are clearly a minority, since the majority of ACBL >members have never given 10 minutes thought to any of these problems. >[And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, really.] > Whether majority or minority, the vast majority of ACBL members >have not the faintest idea how to change anything the ACBL does. I know >others can [and have] explained this better than I, but basically most >officials of the ACBL are chosen by other officials, and vice versa. I am >a very active local player and somtimes director, but I have never voted >for any officer or policy of the ACBL, and have never seen a ballot or >election of such officers. Members vote for Unit board Unit board votes for National Board National Board votes policy It really happens this way >I have been told they take place, but no-one >around here actively solicits any imput whatsoever regarding the process, >or gives out any information. > I'm not nearly as critical of the ACBL as some people are, but for >whatever it's worth the ACBL is definately _not_ anything vaguely >resembling a democratic organization. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it >isn't. > > -Grant > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 07:05:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:05:38 +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 HAA13323 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:05:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA14009; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:08:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012628; Fri Sep 18 15:49:21 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE324.0D5BF4E0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:47:41 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE324.0D5BF4E0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Jan Kamras'" Cc: blml Subject: RE: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:26:44 -0400 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I suspected the point you were intending to make is an excellent one. Of course politicians are always in season. :-) And like some bridge administrators (not all) assume what people they have no true contact with really want. Thank you for clearing the air. Craig ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 2:24 PM To: Craig Senior Cc: blml Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) You're right abt my posting being unneccesarily inflammatory Craig, and I apologize to all if it was taken as saying that people who disagree with me have no common sense. This is neither what I said, nor what I meant. I did mean that US politicians/law-makers *assume* that citizens have no common sense, need protection from everything, and have the right to sue anyone who hasn't spelled out every potential danger in any activity they undertake. Been here - seen that! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 07:13:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:13:17 +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 HAA13345 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:13:11 +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 OAA23121 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809182115.OAA23121@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:13:05 -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 > Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > > Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity > in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. > Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of > sample cases will illustrate the difference. > > Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B > loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players > will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. > Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do > you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? > Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be > score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve > can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the > principles involved.) > > Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. > Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. > Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > For all cases, use L12C2, scoring A to the NOS, -A to the OS. In all cases, there is only one favorable result for the NOS that is likely, and only one unfavorable result for the OS that is at all probable, so no need for L12C3. My inclination is to use L12C3 only to assign multiple favorable results to the NOS in proportion to their probability. Modifying a previous notion I had, I don't think "equity" should extend to ameliorating the effect of L12C2 on the OS. The Laws, as the Scope says, are mainly designed to redress damage to the NOS. Punishing the OS is not a main conern, but neither is providing equity for the OS. Sometimes the NOS gets an undeserved gift, and sometimes the OS is punished too harshly. I see L12C3 as a way to reduce gifts provided the NOS by L12C2 to a more equitable amount, but not as a way to reduce self-inflicted harm to the OS. TDs and ACs have enough work to do without this complication. I don't think ACBL-land would object to L12C3 if it were applied in this manner. My partner misplayed a cold slam the other day. Headed for down one and upset with himself, with three cards left, all high, he trumped LHO's lead instead of winning it by following suit. Down three. Sometimes the revoke law isn't equitable, but it sure makes one careful about revoking. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 07:28:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:28:49 +1000 Received: from coyote.iupui.edu (coyote.iupui.edu [134.68.220.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13394 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:28:40 +1000 Received: from lynx.uits.iupui.edu (lynx.uits.iupui.edu [134.68.220.22]) by coyote.iupui.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/1.18IUPUIPO) with ESMTP id QAA15812 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by lynx.uits.iupui.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:31:44 -0500 Message-ID: <9D916278299FD111A7E100805FA7C2BAD39255@cheetah.uits.iupui.edu> From: "Siddiqui, Aslam" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: New contributor Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:31:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aslam Siddiqui wrote . . .[snipped] Welcome Aslam! At least Herman and I recognize your name. However, you have failed in one of your duties as a new contributor to this group. Do you have any cats, and if so what are their names? -- Richard Lighton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks for the welcome. When I first joined the list, I was overwhelmed. I am an intermediate player and have no ambitions of ever directing. But I'm glad I stuck around. Gradually, I have learned to enjoy the esoteric discussions. It amazing how one situation can be interpreted so many different ways. I have more empathy for our directors now. aslam PS: Sorry, I don't have any cats. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 07:38:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:38:04 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13447 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:37:58 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-9.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.153]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10249; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3602D281.6382A230@idt.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:37:05 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <01BDE324.07FD23C0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Different strokes, I guess, but Unit 553 (D23) will accept as nominees ANYONE who cares to run, and in the past have had an election at the Unit Sectional. That will not happen this year, for various reasons, so I expect we'll have a mailing to both solicit nominees and to vote. Unfortunately, we seem to have little enthusiasm among the members, and this year are actually short-handed because we lost two members, one who had to resign while recovering from cancer (so far so good) and one who simply had to move to another locale because she was too old to live alone any longer. It's too bad, because they were each, in their own way, valuable people to have around. Though we could appoint replacements, no one has come forward. It's something of a problem. Irv Craig Senior wrote: > > When members vote for unit board in 168 (d4) they can either ratify the > slate chosen by the board appointed nominating committee or abstain. > Nominations from the floor are not permitted. Nominating petitions to > contend against the anointed nominees are not accepted within 15 days of > the election. Small wonder the friends of the exisiting board are always > elected to the board. How very democratic! No wonder we are aging and > ingrown as an orgnaisation. I suspect much the same sort of incestuous > process is followed in other units and in higher level elections. Even if > it were not, this is rather like having the unicameral legislator elected > by state legislatures as the senate used to be. The process does not > encourage the rank and file member to take any interest in governance of > the league. Whether this is a good or a bad thing may be open to debate, as > most just do not care...they want to complain rather than participate in > the work of the organisation anyway. But it is absurd to believe that the > Board represents the views of the average member. The average member often > has no views of most matters the Bord must deal with; the members who care > but are outside the clique aere usually unheard from. > > ---------- > From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 11:15 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > snipped > > > Such people are clearly a minority, since the majority of ACBL > >members have never given 10 minutes thought to any of these problems. > >[And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, really.] > > Whether majority or minority, the vast majority of ACBL members > >have not the faintest idea how to change anything the ACBL does. I know > >others can [and have] explained this better than I, but basically most > >officials of the ACBL are chosen by other officials, and vice versa. I am > >a very active local player and somtimes director, but I have never voted > >for any officer or policy of the ACBL, and have never seen a ballot or > >election of such officers. > > Members vote for Unit board > Unit board votes for National Board > National Board votes policy > > It really happens this way > > >I have been told they take place, but no-one > >around here actively solicits any imput whatsoever regarding the process, > >or gives out any information. > > I'm not nearly as critical of the ACBL as some people are, but for > >whatever it's worth the ACBL is definately _not_ anything vaguely > >resembling a democratic organization. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it > >isn't. > > > > -Grant > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 07:51:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:51:13 +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 HAA13498 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:51:07 +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 OAA26651; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809182153.OAA26651@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John R. Mayne" , Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:51:58 -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 John R. Mayne wrote: > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > The following situation came up at the club the other day, and the only > > law book available was a copy of the 1987 laws, with updates dating to > > 1990. Declarer (a quite weak player) was in dummy but led a diamond > > from her hand. LHO immediately said, "You're in the Dummy." Rho > > subsequently (perhaps two seconds later?) said "I'll accept the lead." > > Only then was the director called. None of us knew just who had what > > rights in this situation. I hope this isn't too trivial for the list, > > but there seemed to be no written source of guidance at the club. The > > FLB says either player can accept the lead, but it seems that one player > > did not, while the other did. Surely they are not allowed to consult on > > the matter. Anyone? > > > > Irv > > > > I saw something somewhere (I forget where) which I believe is the best > solution. > > LHO's statement is one calling attention to the infraction, but does not > indicate either acceptance or rejection of the lead. At this point, > either defender may state that they accept or reject the lead > (preferably after calling the director). > > So, RHO's acceptance stands. > No consultation allowed, and no body language. Each uncaring partner just waits for the other to make a decision one way or the other. Since objecting to the lead or accepting it might give declarer a clue as to who has some missing high card, this can be a touchy situation. Sometimes you want partner to make the decision, but the dolt just sits there. The other extreme is the partner who instinctively insists that declarer retract a lead from an entryless hand, thereby forcing him to drop your offside king or queen. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:14:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:14:40 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13619 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:14:34 +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 PAA29695; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809182217.PAA29695@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:13:57 -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: > >The way it happens in the more democratic processes of American > >politics: > > > >The people vote for members of the City Council > >The people vote for the city's Mayor > > Where I live the Council members select a Mayor from amongst themselves. Not good, IMO. > > >The people vote for the state's governing bodies > >The people vote for the state's Governor > > Who then appoints administrators such as the Attorney General. Such > appointments are approved by the state house and senate. > > >The people vote for members of the U. S. Congress > >The people vote for President of the U. S. > > Who then appoints federal judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc. who > then hire staff. Again, some of these appointments must be approved by the > house and senate. > > But, to suggest most government officials are elected is simply not right. > Didn't mean to suggest that, Tim. I'm only saying that American political processes are more democratic than those of the ACBL. I can vote for the U. S. congressmen from my area, but not for the ACBL Director from my district. I can't seem to persuade wife Alice, who is president of the La Jolla and Beach unit, to let me use her vote once in a while. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:43:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:43:38 +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 IAA13667 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:43:32 +1000 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.71]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980918224635.WHXI2535.fep4@ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:35 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:35 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360bdbd1.5185736@post12.tele.dk> References: <002f01bde1e3$df034080$4b2e63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <002f01bde1e3$df034080$4b2e63c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:35:43 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Thus, a likely strategy for a villainous South might well be to do >exactly what this South did =96 open out of turn with a bid that is >ambiguous as to the major suit held, then pretend to have a heart suit >rather than a spade suit. But did he pretend to have a heart suit? Opposite a silenced partner, there is no such thing as a normal bidding system. A 1H opening does not promise partner a certain number of hearts. It really means nothing more than "I'm willing to play 1H if the other three players now passes" and possibly "I want a heart lead". I would not call the 1H bid a psyche, because the concept of a psyche is meaningless opposite a silenced partner. >North-South are severely fined for South=92s actions, which were wholly >incompatible with fair play. I disagree strongly with this. South did what he could to play good bridge under the conditions of a silenced partner - he succeeded in indicating the lead he wanted. If anybody at the table concluded that because South was willing to play 1H if everybody passed, then he must have a heart suit, that is their own problem. However, I do not have a clear opinion of whether or not a L72B1 adjustment is in order. It is true that South could have known beforehand that silencing partner would give him an almost risk-free chance to ask for a heart lead without indicating the nature of his hand. On the other hand, an equivalent argument could be used for adjustment whenever a weak hand silences partner by bidding out of turn, and I believe that would be going too far. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:43:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:43:49 +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 IAA13675 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:43:42 +1000 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.71]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980918224647.WHXL2535.fep4@ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:47 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3609dac8.4920675@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:43:17 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: > 3. The question of Law 73E is one that an appeal=20 > committee should have addressed. However, I > have my doubts about David's reading of the > law; I think it intends to say " It is appropriate > for a player to attempt...." rather than "A player > is entitled to attempt ...... in an appropriate way". So do I. Otherwise, there should have been a definition of "an appropriate way" somewhere. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:44:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:44:00 +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 IAA13695 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:43:53 +1000 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.71]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980918224657.WHXP2535.fep4@ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:57 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:46:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360cdc70.5343854@post12.tele.dk> References: <000a01bde253$3c9b1000$ef3363c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <000a01bde253$3c9b1000$ef3363c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:52:54 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >It is my belief that, having found himself (fortuitously, >and without premeditation, but that does not matter) in a position >where he could deceive the opponents more or less without risk, the >player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate >deception. Interesting - I would actually consider him duty bound to do what he could to get a good result on the board under the circumstances. He found an imaginative bid which made up for the handicap of not being able to get help from partner in the auction. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:44:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:44:13 +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 IAA13709 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:44:05 +1000 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.71]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980918224707.WHXT2535.fep4@ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:47:07 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:47:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3614e277.6887513@post12.tele.dk> References: <000f01bde2e4$5125e220$992b63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <000f01bde2e4$5125e220$992b63c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:11:26 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Does anyone believe that South would have >overcalled 1D with 1H had he not committed the infraction of opening >out of turn? No, but I do not find that relevant. When my partner is barred, I sometimes open 3NT on a hand that I would certainly handle otherwise normally. When I have been forced to lead a penalty card, I often continue my defense differently from what I would do otherwise. It is part of bridge to try to play well under the actual circumstances, including penalties for irregularities. Requiring people to follow their normal bidding system opposite a silenced partner does not make sense. [PS to David: my software does not like the utf-7 character set encoding that you used in this and some other posts - if others have the same problem it might be a good idea to use a more common encoding, e.g. quoted printable or plain 7-bit text.] --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:44:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:44:58 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13726 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:44:51 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id SAA29375; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:47:35 -0400 To: Herman De Wael , Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:25 AM -0400 9/18/98, Herman De Wael wrote: >Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > >Subject: Equity in MI Cases ... >Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. >Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. >Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. My compliments for helping to separate out at least part of the issues involved in Lille #s 1 and 26, and Jeff Rubens' "Unappealing Appeals." As you might guess I believe the existing Laws require adjusting to A for both sides in all three cases. Further, I believe that that's as it should be. I do have a question about your proposal. Do you intend your formula to be used when applying the existing Laws, or only when applying Law 12C3, or are you proposing it for adoption at the next revision of the Laws? AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 08:50:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:50:10 +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 IAA13744 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:50:04 +1000 Received: from client250f.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.15] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zK9On-0006cD-00; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:53:10 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:56:58 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde357$a4039500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: John R. Mayne ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 11:29 PM Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand >No consultation allowed, and no body language. Each uncaring >partner just waits for the other to make a decision one way or the >other. Since objecting to the lead or accepting it might give >declarer a clue as to who has some missing high card, this can be a >touchy situation. Touchy?? Not at all. Law 55C takes care of this. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 10:11:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:11:34 +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 KAA13958 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:11:29 +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 RAA12857 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809190014.RAA12857@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:11:48 -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 The 10th Extract from the WBF Laws Commission minutes, provided by Grattan Endicott: "Laws 20F1 and 20F2 In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances." I was disappointed to find the WBF LC deciding that an action that does not follow L20F1 or L20F2 is a "marginal infringement of the Laws." Is it appropriate for the LC to decide which laws may be violated without fear of penalty? I would think that decision would be up to the SO. If an SO is having trouble with many players who are asking questions for partner's benefit, they might want to enforce the law vigorously. An SO running a high-level team event with screens would not want to enforce it at all. The decision should not be made by the LC, IMO. Many players don't care about "the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information," they only care about making sure that partner knows what's going on in the auction. The practice of asking unnecessary questions is widespread in tournaments, local and national, that I have played in, and there's no way to stop it. Claim misuse of UI? How can you tell if the partner was helped or not? I was hoping that the WBF LC would reaffirm the intent of L20F1 and 20F2, but instead they have vitiated them. I am not referring to those questions that have landed players in front of an AC because of subsequent obvious misuse of the UI. Nor am I referring to normal questioning of an Alerted call. I am referring to infractions that go unpenalized, either because they are not noticed or because damage cannot be determined to the satisfaction of a TD or AC. It all reminds me of the failure of TDs to enforce the ACBL regulation about legible convention cards being on the table. Many don't like the regulation because they have less excuse to ask questions if everyone has to obey it. It's not obeyed, so don't enforce it. I suppose the next extract will declare that it is a "marginal infringement of the laws" for a player to ask about a particular bid that was made instead of asking for a review of the auction (yes, at a table not using bidding boxes). After all, it's done frequently in practical play. Thanks very much to Grattan for providing BLML with the extracts. Let's be careful not to act like we are blaming him, the messenger, for any we don't like. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 10:23:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:23:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13998 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:23:29 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKAr9-0003UG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:26:31 +0000 Message-ID: <6ipvE2AXnvA2Ew0k@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:24:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes In-Reply-To: <199809190014.RAA12857@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809190014.RAA12857@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >Thanks very much to Grattan for providing BLML with the extracts. >Let's be careful not to act like we are blaming him, the messenger, >for any we don't like. > I second this. I now await instruction from Max Bavin at the EBU :) >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 Sat Sep 19 10:49:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:49:31 +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 KAA14032 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:49:24 +1000 Received: from client2657.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.87] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zKBGH-0007iq-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:52:30 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:56:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde368$5005c020$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: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:11:26 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Does anyone believe that South would have >overcalled 1D with 1H had he not committed the infraction of opening >out of turn? No, but I do not find that relevant. Yes...... I was recently approached by a player who proudly said " I want to report myself for psyching." "I bid 2H with a Heart void when my RHO opened an Acol 2C." It was wicked (brilliant in colloquial English) A Heart was the only, and very unlikely, lead to defeat 6C. When my partner is barred, I sometimes open 3NT on a hand that I would certainly handle otherwise normally. Yes. But is there any suspicion that you could have known that barring partner would be beneficial to your side? In the case in question, nobody has asked if the style of weak 2 openings is supported by the hand held! The Vulnerability is of interest, but there's Weak, and Weak. What did the convention card say? When I have been forced to lead a penalty card, I often continue my defense differently from what I would do otherwise. As long as you are not using UI, this is surely Bridge. It is part of bridge to try to play well under the actual circumstances, including penalties for irregularities. Certainly. But surely not if you are responsible for the irregularity, and you could have known! Requiring people to follow their normal bidding system opposite a silenced partner does not make sense. Agreed. Poor Richard (I do not yet know him as he does not play for Wales!!) is now in the position that any further psychic actions ( for the next 25yrs) will be viewed very carefully. The penalty one pays for having a parent who subscribs to BLML. A good psyche is good Bridge (IMO). It is refreshing to read of psychic action that is other than a third in hand at green 1S against LOLs, with a 0 count! [PS to David: my software does not like the utf-7 character set encoding that you used in this and some other posts - if others have the same problem it might be a good idea to use a more common encoding, e.g. quoted printable or plain 7-bit text.] This is gobledegook to me. I read David Burns' posting without difficulty, and agreed with most of what he said. On that vein, I took a long time to understand what Dany was trying to tell us about UI. I think that there is a problem with UI from one's own infraction. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 10:58:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:58:27 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA14067 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:58:21 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2638.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.56]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA07827 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:01:26 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:05:11 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde369$8d16e100$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: mlfrench@writeme.com Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 2:01 AM Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand > >-----Original Message----- >From: Marvin L. French >To: Anne Jones >Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 1:40 AM >Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand > > >As to L55C, I doubt that any TD would rule that a declarer may have >adopted a successful line of play on the basis of who made the >decision to accept or forbid the lead. You may doubt it, but I can assure you that in the jurisdiction that I am involved in, an adjusted score would be automatic if declarer "got it right" without a very good reason, immediately proffered when questioned. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 12:18:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:18:45 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14200 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:18:40 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.159]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980919022116.IEBJ29406@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:21:16 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: , Subject: Re: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:19:13 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde373$e4eb1e00$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: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 7:20 PM Subject: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes >It all reminds me of the failure of TDs to enforce the ACBL >regulation about legible convention cards being on the table. Many >don't like the regulation because they have less excuse to ask >questions if everyone has to obey it. It's not obeyed, so don't >enforce it. This regulation is enforced at all tournaments that I run and all tournaments that I work. If it is not enforced in your area I suggest you present your case to the ACBL Field Representative in your area. Good Luck, Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 12:38:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:38:34 +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 MAA14255 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:38:28 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-22.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.188]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA04471 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36031A3A.7B803FAE@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:43:07 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: Law 12C3 in the ACBL (long) References: <3.0.5.32.19980918084129.007f1e80@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have served on Unit Boards in two units and on a District Board in one of the two. The first Unit (Canadian) covered a large territory and it was a struggle to get members. We seldom (in my area) had to hold an election. We could hardly get members to attend our annual meetings. This board paid mileage and a free entry to the game (sectional) where the meeting was held and provided lunch! From there, I served on the District Board which again paid mileage, hotel if necessary for distance traveled. However, the adjoining unit to us, nominations were held and elections were held at a local tournament. In the current unit, one can nominate oneself for the unit board and if there are more nominees than seats the election is held. It must be advertised in July, and elections held in October. I recommend that one ask a local representative for the copy of the unit bylaws and check things out. If you have access to ACBL score you will find all the info needed from the ACBL prospective) regarding these elections in the handbook which is included in the tech files that should have been installed. They make very interesting reading during spare time while directing. (If the moon isn't full:-) ) Nancy Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 10:15 PM 9/17/98 -0500, Richard F Beye wrote: > > >Members vote for Unit board > >Unit board votes for National Board > >National Board votes policy > > In my unit, a nominating committee appointed by the unit president selects > a slate of board members. There is, of course, a way to petition so that > anybody can be placed on the ballot. But, I cannot recall this happening > in at least 15 years. (In reality, the nominating committee struggles to > find members from each area of the unit who are willing to serve on the > board. But, that is another issue.) > > In my district there have been three contested elections in the last couple > of years. In each case the candidate put forth by the nominating committee > has won the election. I do not think this is merely coincidence. > > At both the unit and district level, I would guess that fewer than 5% of > the membership know what the election process is. I would bet that at > least half of the boardmembers in my unit believe they were appointed > rather than elected. > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 13:18:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:18:17 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14320 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:18:11 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:21:14 -0700 Message-ID: <360323BE.CF53455F@home.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:23:42 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A for both sides in all cases, both based on L12C2 *and* 3. Case 1 is the only one remotely close but since NOS would surely go right without MI it's still fairly easy. It gets more difficult when there is more than one possible result better than B (like in my case of +50, +170 or +620). That's when C2 and C3 might yield different results, imo. It would also be slightly different if, absent MI, say 80% would find A but with MI only 60%. Not all 20% are born equal! If everyone will pick A absent MI, I think an adjustment should be made even if 90% would pick it even with MI, so I guess I'm with the editors of Bridge World on this one. Hope the next test will be tougher! :-)) Herman De Wael wrote: > > Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity > in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. > Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of > sample cases will illustrate the difference. > > Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B > loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players > will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. > Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do > you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? > Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be > score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve > can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the > principles involved.) > > Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. > Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. > Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > > Replies by email to Herman (who will forward copies to Steve) or post > to the mailing list. Thanks. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 14:52:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:52:44 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14513 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:52:37 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcitu.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.190]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA28100 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980919005407.00738554@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 00:54:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation In-Reply-To: <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > >Subject: Equity in MI Cases > >Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity >in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. >Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of >sample cases will illustrate the difference. > >Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B >loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players >will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. >Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do >you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? >Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be >score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve >can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the >principles involved.) > >Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. >Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. >Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > BTW, upon re-reading, I wonder if you have mixed up the cases here, i.e., each case should read "absent the MI" instead of "given the MI". What percentage would pick A or B _with_ the MI seems entirely irrelevant, even if you are inclined toward the "pro-12C3" view that weighted or expected results are more equitable than best likely results. The fact is, this pair did choose B, when by assumption they would have chosen A absent the MI. OTOH, perhaps this is a new theory for computing equity under 12C3, i.e., by reducing compensation for the NOS proportionally to their estimated culpability. File this one under "12C3: Creative ways to penalize the NOS." I have a feeling the file will grow rapidly, at least outside the ACBL. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 21:05:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:05:48 +1000 Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15080 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:05:41 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.13] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKKrS-0005dE-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:07:30 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bde3bd$71264720$0d3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:05:40 +0100 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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: But did he pretend to have a heart suit? Well, his 2D opening had shown a weak hand with one major. When he now bids 1H, what do you imagine he is showing? Are you allowed to play illegal conventions because your partner is silenced (i.e. "1H shows 0+ hearts and is lead-directing"?) Opposite a silenced partner, there is no such thing as a normal bidding system. A 1H opening does not promise partner a certain number of hearts. It really means nothing more than "I'm willing to play 1H if the other three players now passes" and possibly "I want a heart lead". Clearly Jesper's answer to the question "May you change your system without prior disclosure - indeed, re-invent your system at the table - as a result of your own infraction?" is "Yes". I am not quite certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose this on the convention card? I would not call the 1H bid a psyche, because the concept of a psyche is meaningless opposite a silenced partner. With that I agree - the concept of a psyche is that the risk that partner will be deceived is set against the hope that the opponents will be deceived. If the argument is that with a passed partner, you can make what bids you like because they are not psyches, then once again I am not certaint that I agree with it. >North-South are severely fined for South’s actions, which were wholly >incompatible with fair play. I disagree strongly with this. South did what he could to play good bridge under the conditions of a silenced partner - he succeeded in indicating the lead he wanted. If anybody at the table concluded that because South was willing to play 1H if everybody passed, then he must have a heart suit, that is their own problem. South did what he could to randomise the situation beyond reasonable limits, this being South's normal style (trust me, I know this South player). If declarer concluded that South, who had shown a major when thinking it was his turn to bid, had hearts because South had bid them, that is not solely declarer's problem. However, I do not have a clear opinion of whether or not a L72B1 adjustment is in order. It is true that South could have known beforehand that silencing partner would give him an almost risk-free chance to ask for a heart lead without indicating the nature of his hand. On the other hand, an equivalent argument could be used for adjustment whenever a weak hand silences partner by bidding out of turn, and I believe that would be going too far. It would be going as far as Law 23 appears to want us to go. If a player silences partner when it is clear that silencing partner is more likely to work well than badly for his side, and the player could know this, the opponents are entitled to redress. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 21:10:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:10:04 +1000 Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15116 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:09:58 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.13] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKKvd-0006bx-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <006501bde3be$0b15a060$0d3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:09:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" 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 Steve (before disappearing for ten days+ACE-) wrote: +AFs-snip+AF0- +AD4- +AD4APg- Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Partner passes. What action do you take? +AD4APg- +AD4APg- What you would like to do, of course, is open 3NT and play there. +AD4APg- Unhappily, your partnership has the agreement that this opening bid +AD4APg- denies more than one side guard... +AD4- +AD4APg- Now, there has been a fair amount of what I can only describe as +AD4APg- bleating about this kind of thing on the list so far. Apparently, if +AD4APg- anyone actually did this, we would take no action at all. +AD4- +AD4-Good grief, I hope not+ACEAIQAh- I think most of us would adjust in an +AD4-instant under either L23 or 72B1, and I think many would at least +AD4-consider a PP as well. And I hope everyone would advise the player +AD4-that this is a really bad idea and not to come back if he is ever going +AD4-to do it again. If I have misunderstood what others have said, I am sorry. But it appears to me that people would be happy with the notion that this hand could open 1C out of turn without intent or malice aforethought, just as South on the actual problem hand did not act in a premeditated way when opening 2D. If that had happened, what adjustment would you give when he next bid 3NT? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 19 21:18:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:18:19 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15162 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:18:12 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.13] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKL1I-00071k-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:18:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: I cannot accept the assertion that "the legal question... is never... actual intent". Indeed, L72, which is what we're debating here, seems quite clearly written to *require* judgments of actual intent. It repeatedly uses the phrase "inadvertent infraction". It explicitly forbids "infring[ing] a law intentionally". If actual intent cannot be considered, these phrases are meaningless. How can anyone be expected to decide whether an infraction was "inadvertent" or "intentional" *without* judging "actual intent"? L72B1 is what we are discussing, and that deliberately makes no mention of intent, only of potential (not actual) knowledge. The rest of L72 refers to intent, but speaks in general terms and not in the context of this case. Again: L72B1 does not require us to make any judgement at all about what the player intended. It does not even require us to make a judgement about what the player actually knew. All that is required is for us to make a judgement about what the player could have known. Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for the actual South player to resist. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 01:28:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:28:50 +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 BAA17896 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:28:41 +1000 Received: from ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.53]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980919153145.XACL2535.fep4@ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:31:45 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:31:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3607ba5d.3758143@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bde368$5005c020$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 Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:56:19 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: Jesper: >When my partner is barred, I sometimes open 3NT on a hand that I >would certainly handle otherwise normally. Anne: >Yes. But is there any suspicion that you could have known that barring >partner would be beneficial to your side? If there is, a L72B1 adjustment may be in order afterwards. But that does not make it "incompatible with fair play", as David put it, to try to achieve a good table score. Jesper: >It is part of bridge to try to play well under the actual >circumstances, including penalties for irregularities. Anne: >Certainly. But surely not if you are responsible for the irregularity, >and you could have known! If I _knew_ and deliberately bid out of turn, then I'm cheating, and it then makes no sense to discuss my further ethical obligations. If I inadvertently bid out of turn and was penalized with a silenced partner, then I still have an obligation to try to play well - i.e., make the call that I believe will give me the best chance of a good score. Just as I try to get a good score even with a penalty card. A L72B1 adjustment may result, but it is the TD's job to determine that afterwards - I'm not supposed to play badly in order to ensure that I do not get a good score after an infraction. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 01:29:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:29:07 +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 BAA17910 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:29:01 +1000 Received: from ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.53]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980919153206.XACR2535.fep4@ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:32:06 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:32:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360dc6b1.6914081@post12.tele.dk> References: <006501bde3be$0b15a060$0d3563c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <006501bde3be$0b15a060$0d3563c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:09:59 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Steve (before disappearing for ten days+ACE-) wrote: >+AD4- >+AD4APg- Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx >+AD4APg- >+AD4APg- Partner passes. What action do you take? >+AD4APg- >+AD4APg- What you would like to do, of course, is open 3NT and play = there. >+AD4APg- Unhappily, your partnership has the agreement that this opening= bid >+AD4APg- denies more than one side guard... >If I have misunderstood what others have said, I am sorry. But it >appears to me that people would be happy with the notion that this >hand could open 1C out of turn without intent or malice aforethought, >just as South on the actual problem hand did not act in a premeditated >way when opening 2D. If that had happened, what adjustment would you >give when he next bid 3NT? Depending on whether or not the player has some other natural way to 3NT in his system, I might adjust under L72B1. But I would certainly not consider his 3NT bid unethical in any way - it is the only correct bid under the circumstances. This seems to me to be a more obvious L72B1 case than the other one. Here the player is almost certain that he reaches the correct final contract, while our multi-out-turn player might have found a partner with 25 HCP. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 01:28:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:28:59 +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 BAA17903 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:28:51 +1000 Received: from ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.53]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980919153155.XACO2535.fep4@ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:31:55 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:31:56 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360ec717.7016389@post12.tele.dk> References: <002c01bde3bd$71264720$0d3563c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <002c01bde3bd$71264720$0d3563c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:05:40 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Jesper wrote: >But did he pretend to have a heart suit? David: >Well, his 2D opening had shown a weak hand with one major. When he now >bids 1H, what do you imagine he is showing? Are you allowed to play >illegal conventions because your partner is silenced (i.e. "1H shows >0+ hearts and is lead-directing"?) With a silenced partner, the concept of a convention disappears. As someone said, bidding with a silenced partner can be compared to declarer's card play. We do not accuse declarers of illegal signalling methods because they choose their cards in order to confuse the opponents. Let me try to make my position clear: A bidding system is a set of agreements between partners, intended to allow those partners to reach a good contract by cooperation during the auction. When partner is silenced, there can be no cooperation during the auction and there is therefore no such thing as a bidding system. There is also no such thing as a psyche, since a psyche is a (gross and deliberate) deviation from the agreed bidding system. (The statements above are slightly overstated in order to make the principle clear - of course I admit that in reality the bidding system only disappears _almost_ completely, since the bidding also has some effect on the following card play.) >Clearly Jesper's answer to the question "May you change your system >without prior disclosure - indeed, re-invent your system at the >table - as a result of your own infraction?" is "Yes". Not any infraction. But when the partnership game of bridge is changed to a one-person game by a penalty, it makes no sense to follow partnership agreements. It is not a "re-invented" system - it is no system at all, since there is no partner to have system agreements with. >I am not quite >certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose >this on the convention card? Nowhere. Convention cards are used to disclose partnership agreements, and this is not a partnership agreement. With a silenced partner, you are obviously bidding (almost) without partnership agreements, and the convention card is useless. The typical 3NT call with any fairly good hand in that situation is not described on any convention card I've seen. Jesper: >South did what he could to play >good bridge under the conditions of a silenced partner - he >succeeded in indicating the lead he wanted. If anybody at the >table concluded that because South was willing to play 1H if >everybody passed, then he must have a heart suit, that is their >own problem. David: >South did what he could to randomise the situation beyond reasonable >limits, this being South's normal style If you want to penalize South for generally playing a random style instead of bridge, by all means do so. But this case in isolation seems very much like bridge to me. >If declarer concluded that South, who had shown a major when >thinking it was his turn to bid, had hearts because South had bid >them, that is not solely declarer's problem. If I had been declarer, I too would undoubtedly have thought he had hearts. I would have gone down. And I would then have realized that there really was no reason to believe he had hearts, and that 1H was simply a very good bid under the circumstances. Actually, if he _has_ hearts, a 1H call is rather strange - it almost certainly won't buy the contract, it won't disturb the opponents at all, it won't help partner bid game (because he is silenced). The only sensible purpose left is lead directing - and if he really has a heart multi, why not combine that purpose with preemption and bid 2H instead? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 01:29:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:29:20 +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 BAA17917 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:29:11 +1000 Received: from ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.53]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980919153215.XACW2535.fep4@ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:32:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:32:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360ac5f2.6723007@post12.tele.dk> References: <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:18:11 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Again: L72B1 does not require us to make any judgement at all about >what the player intended. It does not even require us to make a >judgement about what the player actually knew. All that is required is >for us to make a judgement about what the player could have known. Agreed. This is exactly what makes L72B1 such a very good law. >Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but >I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one >exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could >easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was >likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner >up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I >attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest >that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with >impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East >opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for >the actual South player to resist. As I've said before, I believe that he would be failing in his obligation to play as well as possible if, after the thought had occurred to him, he did not bid 1H. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 02:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:02:18 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18214 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:02:11 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h1.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id UAA10626; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:05:14 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <360470FD.6D33@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:05:33 -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: Psyche when partner is silenced References: <006501bde3be$0b15a060$0d3563c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_5.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_5.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) One more try - to reach agreement:) Steve Willner wrote: "Our bridge judgements differ" Yes - and it is AC who should decide judgement's problem. That's why I suggest: our discussion (via BLML) is a discussion during AC meeting. And general rules of AC might be applied to our discussion too - with aims to work out some common position 1. There were posts where it was said that 1Heart bid was made with lead-direct aim. Peter Haglich wrote: "Is there any mitigation for the 1H psyche with a void as being intended as lead-directing vs an opponent's contract in a suit?" MadDog replied: "It seems obvious to me" John R. Mayne wrote: "Isn't 1H *purely* lead-directing when partner is barred?" Dany Haimovici wrote: " I just meant that the young generation of top players use for sure the agreement of lead direction bid , after a weak two opening bid...... (By the way - such an agreement rather should be alerted. Or specified in CC) So - let's try to see (as Dany did) what might happen without infraction (or in case opponent would allow 2Diamonds to stand). Dany suggested that without infractions "South's call will be either 2S or pass . The scenario will be : For 2S - West would bid 3S or any other strong forcing bid and North will pass for 96.86%... For pass - West would bid 1H (again for 96.84% or more) , North would bid 2Cl or pass and from now on N-S are out of the bidding." (I guess that after 2Clubes N-S would reach their nice defence in club at any possible level) In case of allowing 2Diamonds to stand I think that the highest N-S bid would be 2Spades - depending on their system: at once by N (showing Heart's possibilities) or through 2Hearts (by N) in searching partner's suit. And I think that there would be no way to make Heart lead-direct bid at all - too high risk that partner will bid too high ib this vulnarability:) Neither in case without irregularity nor in case of allowing 2Diamonds to stand. That's why my opinion is that South's lead-direct-bid of 1Heart was decision (and information for N) which by no way could be possible in absence of the infraction. So - due to infraction S receive possibility to make lead-direct-bid. And I think that one may easier agree that such advantage "could be known" (foreseen) at the time of infraction. 2. A lot of posts concerned with problem of psychic bid - pro and contra.. Steve Willner wrote: "The question is whether a villain would prefer the option "bar partner and psyche" over the option "bid normally."" "Why is a psyche incompatible with fair play? The opponents know that North is barred" "If we want rules against psyching after partner is barred, then we better write them down in black and white." Grattan Endicott wrote: "if the penalty for it has been paid, as to which there can be some question albeit not in terms of the practice hitherto, then the player may reasonably argue that he has made a call advantageous to his side and is not barred from profiting from his own infraction." David Burn wrote: "I cannot believe that it is open to a player to take cynical advantage of his own infraction in such a fashion. What he did appears to me a clear breach of L73E" Jesper Dybdal wrote: "It is part of bridge to try to play well under the actual circumstances, including penalties for irregularities." Dany Haimovici wrote: "And the last remark relevant for the case , not for my UI opinion : The 1H bid - either as psyche or UI - is very ..."not nice" because is protected by the Law , compelling his partner to be dumb" Etc., etc. As we see - there are serious discussion about "could S know" or he couldn't. It is bridge decision - and there is large part of us (I remind - we are AC members) that thinks he could know me too). At least - there are doubts about it. And L84D prompts us what should be decided in case of doubts (so to AC as to TD). "LAW 84 - RULINGS ON AGREED FACTS When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are agreed upon, he shall rule as follows: D. Director's Option If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty and the award of an adjusted score, he attempts to restore equity, resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side." By the way - where are supporters of L12C3? It is chance to prove how AC may reach equity under this law... Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 02:04:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:04:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18230 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:04:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.74.191] (helo=timberlands.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKPXW-0002Mz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:07:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Martin Pool To: Bridge Laws Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:52:11 +0100 Message-ID: <488794110eMartin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Pluto 1.09j for RISC OS 3.7 Subject: Scoring at cross-imps Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One pair were ill & left after playing 7 boards. (2 board rounds). Is everyone's score factored depending on the number of boards played or do they get A+ (Root 8X where X= times cross-imped) ? -- Martin Pool From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 03:14:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:14:18 +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 DAA18405 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:14:11 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.2]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 5907400 ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:14:46 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:20:40 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3607ba5d.3758143@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have not been following this thread all the way through, so my apologies if I am covering old ground. I am surprised to find that there seems to be significant disagreement over the interpretation of L72B1. Imo, if the WBFLC had meant for the director to use his judgment as to intent, they would have written "that an offender demonstrably knew" or "that an offender probably knew". They instead wrote "that an offender *could* have known." It seems clear to me that the intent of the committee was to *remove* intent from the equation. They presumably did this out of recognition that it is surely not in the best interests of the game for the director to be obliged to explicitly or implicitly accuse a pair of deliberate impropriety in order to make an adjustment when there might have been damage. L72B1 is simply an extension, and imo a very good extension, of the principles that Kaplan laid out in 1964 for dealing with other potential improprieties. The reality is that intent is deceptively difficult to discern and even more difficult to prove. The capacity to make an adjustment without a finding of intent is the best tool a director or committee has to ensure that violations of the proprieties don't become profitable. Of more subtle, but perhaps equal importance, is that it is also the best tool for ensuring that considerations as to evidence of deliberate impropriety are not subjugated to the interests of protecting the non-offending side from damage. It is unfortunate that a player who believes he is exercising his rights under L72A5 may complete a series of actions which place him under the aegis of L72B1. Unless one defines "advantageous to their side" in a particularly legalistic way, it seems clear that there is a conflict (presumably resulting from the relatively late metamorphosis of L73B1 into its present form) between L72A5 and L72B1 which should be resolved. From my perspective, the solution is a relatively simple one: just as L72A5 rights are subject to limitation by L16C2, so can they be subject to limitation by L73B1. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 03:40:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:40:32 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18467 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:40:25 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcju2.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.194]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA30062 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980919134156.00735b0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:41:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation In-Reply-To: <3603BDF6.79474DB9@village.uunet.be> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980919005407.00738554@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:21 PM 9/19/98 +0200,Herman wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> > >> >Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. >> >Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. >> >Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. >> > >> BTW, upon re-reading, I wonder if you have mixed up the cases here, i.e., >> each case should read "absent the MI" instead of "given the MI". What > >No Mike, the text is correct. > >Absent the MI, the selection of A is automatic. > >With the MI, the AC decides the majority of players would still manage >to find A, and the pair in appeal did not. Do we give them A anyway? > Absolutely, unless we find B to be an "egregious error", and the statement of the problem makes clear that is not the finding in these cases (i.e., in all cases, at least 20% would make the same choice). The OS gets the result of A, anyway. But unless the NOS did something grossly stupid, they are entitled to the result they would have obtained absent the infraction. That's what "redress for damage" means. Where is the upside in turning a relatively straightforward procedure for compensating the NOS into a pseudo-mathematical crap shoot? Please note the difference between this problem and the usual argument made in favor of 12C3, which we might call the Albequerque defense. In that canonical case, there are multiple "likely outcomes" _absent the infraction_, and there is a legitimate concern over whether the automatic selection of the most favorable result (a la 12C2) might in some cases lead to excessive and inequitable compensation for the NOS. In this case, there is only one likely outcome in the absence of the infraction, but Herman (and Steve?) apparently propose reducing the compensation for the NOS to the extent that their decision _with_ the MI would be less than unanimous. Precisely why this would be more equitable remains an enigma. To Grattan, David, et al: I would ask you to carefully consider whether this type of application of 12C3 is really what the WBFLC had in mind in crafting this Law, and whether it serves the interests of the game. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 03:45:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:45:00 +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 DAA18490 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:44:55 +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 KAA03394 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809191747.KAA03394@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: 9th Extract WBF LC Minutes Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:43:56 -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 The ninth Extract from the WBF Laws Commission minutes, provided by Grattan Endicott: "Laws 20F1 and 20F2 In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances." It was disappointing that the WBF LC has ruled that an action that does not follow L20F1 or L20F2 is a "marginal infringement of the Laws." Is it appropriate for the LC to decide which laws may be violated without fear of penalty? I would think that decision would be up to the SO. If an SO is having trouble with many players who are asking questions for partner's benefit, they might want to enforce the law vigorously. An SO running a high-level team event with screens would not want to enforce it at all. Or, the SO might publish specific guidelines as to when questioning of individual calls will not normally be penalized (e.g., the answer to the question is not on the opposing convention card and it is the first non-pass by the opposing pair). I was hoping that the WBF LC would merely reaffirm the intent of L20F1 and 20F2, which had been widely misinterpreted, but while doing so they have vitiated them. Many players don't care about the "increased risk" of UI, they only care about making sure partner knows what's going on in the auction. The practice of asking unnecessary questions is widespread in tournaments, local and national, that I have played in, and there's no way to stop it. Claim misuse of UI? How can you tell if the partner was helped or not? I am not referring to those questions that have landed players in front of an AC because of subsequent obvious misuse of the UI. Nor am I referring to normal questioning of an Alerted call. I am referring to infractions that go unpenalized, either because they are not noticed or because damage cannot be determined to the satisfaction of a TD or AC. It all reminds me of the failure of TDs to enforce the ACBL regulation about legible convention cards being on the table. Many don't like the regulation because they have less excuse to ask questions if everyone has to obey it. It's not obeyed, so don't enforce it. I suppose the next extract will declare that it is a "marginal infringement of the laws" for a player to ask about a particular bid that was made instead of asking for a review of the auction (yes, at a table not using bidding boxes). After all, it's done frequently in practical play. Thanks very much to Grattan for providing BLML with the extracts. Let's be careful not to act like we are blaming him, the messenger, for any we don't like. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 04:03:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:03:49 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18573 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:03:44 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:06:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3603F34E.E6C51210@home.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:09:18 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Shana Tova! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just want to give everyone on the relevant calendar [the rest of you will have to wait:-)] my best wishes for a prosperous, healthy and happy new year! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 04:25:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:25:43 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18640 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:25:37 +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 LAA08015 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809191828.LAA08015@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:26:17 -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 Damn! My e-mail software sent out a preliminary version of this message without my knowledge, but maybe I hit a wrong key. It's the NINTH extract, not the tenth, and I rewrote some of the text, so disregard the "tenth extract" version. Sorry. Richard F. Beye wrote: I wrote: > > >It all reminds me of the failure of TDs to enforce the ACBL > >regulation about legible convention cards being on the table. Many > >don't like the regulation because they have less excuse to ask > >questions if everyone has to obey it. It's not obeyed, so don't > >enforce it. > > This regulation is enforced at all tournaments that I run and all > tournaments that I work. If it is not enforced in your area I suggest you > present your case to the ACBL Field Representative in your area. > It is not enforced in my area, and it is not enforced at NABCs. Some pros e.g., Bobby Goldman, Roger Bates, don't even have a card. I wrote to Gary Blaiss, Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL, complaining about the lack of enforcement, and his reply began, "Well, Marv, there are lots of regulations in this world that are not enforced." And this answer was endorsed by CEO Green! Now, what do you suggest I do next? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 04:33:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:33:49 +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 EAA18659 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:33:42 +1000 Received: from modem84.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.212] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zKRsF-0000rU-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:36:48 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:35:53 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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 Burn To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: 18 September 1998 16:08 Grattan wrote: [snip] However, as the law stands if this infraction (OBOOT) was inadvertent, which DB does not necessarily accept, David: Apologies for lack of clarity, ---------- === Oh, David, you are clear enough in what you say; but the position you take up is that the player could have known, which would only have been the case if his action was purposeful from the start. Otherwise he only thought of the potential advantage considerably later than his infraction, not *at the time of*. Of course you are correct in saying that the action could have been purposeful all through, and, yes, you are entitled to rule against him on those grounds without proof of actuality. But if we were to adjudge confidently that he did not in fact think of the psyche until his turn came there are grounds for not pursuing 72B1 in this instance. And whilst there may be many who would feel this kind of scenario is highly undesirable, it is far from clear that the Laws have adopted such a stance. === ==== On the subject of 'appropriately': " Dr Johnson may appropriately journey in a sedan chair" - does this mean it is fitting that Dr J., because of his status, travel comfortably? - or does it mean he may travel in a sedan chair provided he conforms to the customary manner of doing so? ==== ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 07:43:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:43:33 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19063 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:43:27 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:46:33 -0700 Message-ID: <360426CD.B59AB2DF@home.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:49:01 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980919005407.00738554@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980919134156.00735b0c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > In this case, there > is only one likely outcome in the absence of the infraction, but Herman > (and Steve?) apparently propose reducing the compensation for the NOS to > the extent that their decision _with_ the MI would be less than unanimous. > Precisely why this would be more equitable remains an enigma. > > To Grattan, David, et al: I would ask you to carefully consider whether > this type of application of 12C3 is really what the WBFLC had in mind in > crafting this Law, and whether it serves the interests of the game. I sincerely hope Michael is misinterpreting Herman's/Steve's (/WBFLC's?) intentions since, if not, I'm moving over to the ACBL anti L12C3 camp! :-(( From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 08:51:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:51:18 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19201 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:51:10 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.52] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKVsI-0003VA-00; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:53:07 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01bde41f$c4c1db80$342d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:49:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >=== Oh, David, you are clear enough in what you say; but the position you >take up is that the player could have known, which would only have been >the case if his action was purposeful from the start. Obviously I have not been clear enough. I will have one more try. I am wholly convinced that the player did not know, when he opened 2D out of turn, that he would shortly find himself in a position to bid 1H. I do not believe that he opened 2D out of turn just in case it went 1D on his left so that he could bid 1H over it. I am equally convinced that his action in opening 2D out of turn was based on nothing more nefarious than his erroneous belief that he was the dealer. >Otherwise he only >thought of the potential advantage considerably later than his infraction, >not *at the time of*. I firmly believe that this is exactly what happened. >Of course you are correct in saying that the action >could have been purposeful all through, and, yes, you are entitled to rule >against him on those grounds without proof of actuality. Very well. That is what I have said I would do, and that is certainly what I would have done. I do not believe that "proof of actuality" is required in the least, and as Bill Seagrave and others have pointed out, the Laws are as they are precisely in order to eliminate the need for such proof. >But if we were to >adjudge confidently that he did not in fact think of the psyche until his >turn came there are grounds for not pursuing 72B1 in this instance. Ah, that is so hard that I fear I'm unable... (Lewis, as you very well know, Carroll). 72B1 states, as I read it, that if a player could have known that some advantage might ("was likely", pace Steve Willner) to accrue to his side from his infraction, and if such advantage did in fact accrue, an adjusted score is - dare I say it? - appropriate. Now, it is fairly clear to me that when you have a hand such as South's, you could readily know that speaking first on this hand instead of second might confer several advantages upon your side. Among these could be: the benefit of early pre-emption if LHO is equally dozy and condones 2D; the opportunity to bid spades whilst attracting a heart lead against some minor suit contract; and the ability to muddy the waters without the risk that partner will perpetrate some folly if you succeed in silencing him. Against that, as someone has pointed out, is the possibility that partner might have a 25 count. Well, even if he has, you may not be wrong to play in 2S (certainly, if he has a bit less than 25, you might end up happy that you did not let him carry your "weak two" to execssive heights - three, for example). >And >whilst there may be many who would feel this kind of scenario is highly >undesirable, it is far from clear that the Laws have adopted such a stance. Well, it is clear enough to me that this is what the Laws say. Of course, they did not mean to do it - the "could have known" bit is there for various reasons among which this particular scenario was probably not uppermost in the minds of the Laws Commission. As with most of the Laws, what often happens is that the innocent but clumsy get punished for our desire to catch the villains. But I prefer this to the alternative, since it is far more in keeping with the Laws of a game - the law of the land has a wholly different set of imperatives. >==== On the subject of 'appropriately': " Dr Johnson may appropriately >journey in a sedan chair" - does this mean it is fitting that Dr J., because >of his status, travel comfortably? - or does it mean he may travel in a sedan >chair provided he conforms to the customary manner of doing so? ==== Well, well. If the Law had said: "A player may legally attempt to deceive an opponent...", then I would just about be prepared to concede that "legally" meant: "It is legal that a player may attempt..." (just as "Hopefully it will not rain tomorrow" is perfectly good English - cf: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."). Where an adverb cannot semantically fulfil its normal function of qualifying the nearest available main verb, then some extrapolation is forced. But where an adverb can fulfil such a function, and where it is entirely sensible that it does while the alternative makes less sense, then I will continue to read the adverb as if it were written by someone who spoke English in order to communicate the customary sense to a fellow speaker of that language. I would be interested to learn, if anyone on the list can help me, how this Law is translated into other languages - German in particular, since that is a language with which I have some acquaintance, but Danish and others would also be of value. Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 08:58:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:43 +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 ESMTP id IAA19222 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:36 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKW0b-000315-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:01:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:43:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand In-Reply-To: <01bde369$8d16e100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bde369$8d16e100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: mlfrench@writeme.com >Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 2:01 AM >Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Marvin L. French >>To: Anne Jones >>Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 1:40 AM >>Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand >> >> >>As to L55C, I doubt that any TD would rule that a declarer may have >>adopted a successful line of play on the basis of who made the >>decision to accept or forbid the lead. > >You may doubt it, but I can assure you that in the jurisdiction that I >am involved in, an adjusted score would be automatic if declarer "got it >right" without a very good reason, immediately proffered when >questioned. >Anne > I am very suspicious of Alcatraz coups, gasper coups etc. I need a lot of persuading not to adjust in these cases. I'm with Anne. -- 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 Sep 20 08:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:44 +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 ESMTP id IAA19223 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:36 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKW0b-0000Dv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:01:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:41:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps In-Reply-To: <488794110eMartin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <488794110eMartin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk>, Martin Pool writes >One pair were ill & left after playing 7 boards. (2 board rounds). > >Is everyone's score factored depending on the number of boards played or do >they get A+ (Root 8X where X= times cross-imped) ? > I would factor people's scores for the boards they hadn't played, accepted the results for the boards they hadn't and withdrawn their result from the final ranking list. IMO too much bias is applied to the results by adding in so many imps to the final result sheet. -- 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 Sep 20 08:58:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:56 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA19251 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:58:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKW0b-00011A-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:01:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:55:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >Again: L72B1 does not require us to make any judgement at all about >what the player intended. It does not even require us to make a >judgement about what the player actually knew. All that is required is >for us to make a judgement about what the player could have known. >Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but >I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one >exception!) does not. David does know Richard well, and I would concur with David's remarks about Richard's bidding style. It is characterised by my pard and I scoring up with him. Swiss Teams, Table 1. Us: "-150, sorry we slopped the overtrick after 1NT - 2NT" Him: "No problem, +800, we hit them in 4D" Us: "What! - they were four nearly balanced hands" Him: "Well I overcalled 2S and they got the LOTT 4 tricks wrong and couldn't double us for penalties" > I assure you that this particular South could >easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was >likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner >up before psyching hearts. This hand has the spade suit, he can outbid the opponents on most hands, he doesn't want to silence partner. And Richard was intending to show spades when he opened 2D - the hand in question is a bog-standard Under25 multi. Indeed if he had been first in hand that is what he would have done. He may well have been intending to get back in at the 4 or 5 level in C. Give Richard's partner either of the other two hands at the table and Richard is going to do very badly with his OBOOT. I still don't see how he "could have known" ... It just happened to work. > And again: this does not mean that I >attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest >that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with >impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East >opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for >the actual South player to resist. > I agree. Certainly it runs in the family. I psyched an OBOOT 3rd in hand to silence partner myself at the YC 20 years ago - possibly even against David, because I got fed up with Wolfarth (my then pard) declaring all the hands. But I did it a-purpose, wondering if it was illegal, and owned up after the hand. (-6 imps and an official warning I think was what I got, ([which was par for the course at the time] and I've never tried it since). It is not one of the YC gambits I have discussed with Richard either. I believe there are a number of one-time coups (which occur to one at the instant of perpetration) which one can bring off at the table and this one was one of them. That it worked beyond belief is Richard's misfortune. I wish I'd been the one to find it 20 years ago. Richard fully accepts he'll never get away with this coup again, he knew that right from the time the original ruling was made. -- 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 Sep 20 09:48:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:48:56 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA19325 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:48:49 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.68] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKWjg-0005qY-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01bde427$ce6ab8c0$342d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:47:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: [snip] With a silenced partner, the concept of a convention disappears. As someone said, bidding with a silenced partner can be compared to declarer's card play. We do not accuse declarers of illegal signalling methods because they choose their cards in order to confuse the opponents. [DALB] This, typically for Jesper, is an interesting argument that is actually quite deep. My first instinct was to dismiss it out of hand, in keeping with my belief that it cannot be right to allow a player free rein to misrepresent his hand to opponents with (almost) no attendant risk in misrepresenting it to his partner, just because that player has previously committed an infraction. But I have thought about it for some time now, and while I still believe Jesper's position to be fundamentally wrong, it is not obviously so. Jesper continued: Let me try to make my position clear: A bidding system is a set of agreements between partners, intended to allow those partners to reach a good contract by cooperation during the auction. When partner is silenced, there can be no cooperation during the auction and there is therefore no such thing as a bidding system. There is also no such thing as a psyche, since a psyche is a (gross and deliberate) deviation from the agreed bidding system. [DALB] The principal difficulty that I have with this is: the opponents are permitted to know what your side's bids ostensibly mean (L40 et al). They are, in Championship play at any rate, permitted to know this sufficiently far in advance in order to prepare counter-measures. Now, to state the matter simply, if we are prepared to allow Jesper's position, which is that a player may in effect use this method: If my partner is silenced, then my bids are meaningless - you have to guess which of them are natural and which not then it is in keeping with the principle of full disclosure that such a player's opponents are (a) aware of this in advance, lest the situation come up at the table; and (b) expected to have a set of counter-measures to meaningless bids. I do not believe that such an expectation is in any way reasonable. If Jesper wishes to play this system: When my partner is silenced, my 1H overcalls may be a void then I need to know this in advance in order to be able to organise my own methods best to counter his. I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect players to deal with such scenarios as might otherwise arise by, in effect, having to invent their own system at the table. If my partner opens 1D and my RHO overcalls 1H, I know what my methods are. If my opponents arrive at the table and tell me: "We play a 1H overcall of your 1D as either a heart suit or a heart shortage", then I will discuss the position with my partner and we will know what our methods are. (You may not believe me, but we have just played against precisely such a system in a recent match against Australia!) But, if the bidding goes: 2D on the right - cancelled, back to partner who opens 1D - and now the 2D bidder volunteers 1H which may be hearts or spades, I have no idea what my methods are. Nor is it reasonable to expect that I should have any idea. I may think about it and decide that penalty doubles are probably better than negative, but how am I to be sure that partner is thinking the same thoughts? (The statements above are slightly overstated in order to make the principle clear - of course I admit that in reality the bidding system only disappears _almost_ completely, since the bidding also has some effect on the following card play.) Well, your system never "disappears completely". Your opponents are still allowed to know what it is. If your position is that you do not have a system, because for this auction you do not have a partner, then I am entitled to know this without having to work it out under pressure at the table. I asked: >I am not quite >certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose >this on the convention card? and Jesper replied: Nowhere. Convention cards are used to disclose partnership agreements, and this is not a partnership agreement. With a silenced partner, you are obviously bidding (almost) without partnership agreements, and the convention card is useless. The typical 3NT call with any fairly good hand in that situation is not described on any convention card I've seen. [DALB] True, but this may be presumed to fall within the area of "general bridge knowledge"; it is something for which the opponents are prepared, or if they are not, at least they stand a sporting chance of being able to sweat out their own salvation at the table. The player who shows a major with his opening bid and then bids hearts with shortage in a risk-free environment is setting his opponents problems that I do not believe he ought to be allowed to set them, because the only reason he is in a position to do so is that he himself has broken a law. Moreover, the player who opens out of turn with a normal opening bid and then guesses 3NT has not (usually) done anything to remove his own side's risk from his subsequent actions, quite contrary to the case under discussion. Jesper: >South did what he could to play >good bridge under the conditions of a silenced partner - he >succeeded in indicating the lead he wanted. If anybody at the >table concluded that because South was willing to play 1H if >everybody passed, then he must have a heart suit, that is their >own problem. David: >South did what he could to randomise the situation beyond reasonable >limits, this being South's normal style Jesper: If you want to penalize South for generally playing a random style instead of bridge, by all means do so. But this case in isolation seems very much like bridge to me. [DALB] It's bridge, Jim, but not as we know it. Still, as I know to my cost, they play a tough game in Denmark! David: >If declarer concluded that South, who had shown a major when >thinking it was his turn to bid, had hearts because South had bid >them, that is not solely declarer's problem. Jesper: If I had been declarer, I too would undoubtedly have thought he had hearts. I would have gone down. And I would then have realized that there really was no reason to believe he had hearts, and that 1H was simply a very good bid under the circumstances. [DALB] You are a sportsman and a gentleman, Jesper. With those qualities, what you're doing playing bridge is anybody's guess. Actually, if he _has_ hearts, a 1H call is rather strange - it almost certainly won't buy the contract, it won't disturb the opponents at all, it won't help partner bid game (because he is silenced). The only sensible purpose left is lead directing - and if he really has a heart multi, why not combine that purpose with preemption and bid 2H instead? Well, if I had opened 2D out of turn on such as xx AKxxxx xxx xx and my RHO opened 1D, I would not think it strange to bid 1H. But I am very old and tired these days. I would say this in Jesper's favour: every point he makes is completely consistent with the Laws as they are written (Law 40 in particular, and Law 73 under the Grattan interpretation also). My own position is far less easy to justify by reference to the letter of the Law - the "principle of full disclosure" is a regulatory, not a legal, requirement. I think, however, that my position has this going for it. I sleep easy at night. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 10:59:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:59:51 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19635 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:59:45 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 8CNCa03786; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:02:12 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <56c99de7.36045414@aol.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:02:12 EDT To: jkamras@home.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Shana Tova! Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan, And a sweet year to you too! Thanks for your good wishes from one "on the relevant calendar." Also Shana Tova to anyone else listening. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 17:29:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:29:14 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA20288 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:29:05 +1000 Received: from modem4.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.4] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zKdyR-0004Et-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:32:00 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:11:46 +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 "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 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes > Date: 19 September 1998 01:11 > > The 10th Extract from the WBF Laws Commission minutes, provided by > Grattan Endicott: > > "Laws 20F1 and 20F2 Marvin L. French writes: > > I was disappointed to find the WBF LC deciding that an > action that does not follow L20F1 or L20F2 is a "marginal > infringement of the Laws." Is it appropriate for the LC to decide > which laws may be violated without fear of penalty? ++++ Perhaps this is a good moment to re-read the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws. This provides evidence in plenty that all the way through the Laws the WBFLC is expressing views as to the desirability of penalising or not breaches of various kinds. ++++ > > Thanks very much to Grattan for providing BLML with the extracts. > Let's be careful not to act like we are blaming him, the messenger, > for any we don't like. > +++ I have said to one distinguished US member of the Committee that it did not *look* too good (in the minutes) that Ton and I were the only European members present in a Committee with an attendance of seven to ten members; said distinguished US member replied that when it was Ton and I Europe lacked nothing in voice. Let me add that the meetings were very satisfactory in the constructive way the Committee got down to its business and I have no complaints as to the outcome - except that Jesper does seem to have identified a hole we have left. One may add that everything was done by consensus, no votes were involved. The minutes have gone to NBOs - I sent them personally - and TDs should look for their on-the-ground guidance to their own organizations when these have come to grips with the rulings made. Wait for your own leaders to pull the trigger! +++ ~~ Grattan ~~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 17:29:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:29:27 +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 RAA20281 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:28:59 +1000 Received: from modem4.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.4] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zKdyT-0004Et-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:32:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David W Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: History Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:24:23 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "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) ++++ Eureka! When I was digging in an old file for the correspondence about Law 26 what fell out was a 1987 EBU 'Yellow Book'. A valuable piece of history. It shows the introduction of the condition inhibiting use of any convention with an opening bid falling short, by agreement, of specified minimum values. The regulation came into force on 29th July 1987. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 17:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:29:52 +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 RAA20283 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:29:04 +1000 Received: from modem4.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.4] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zKdyV-0004Et-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:32:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:23:47 +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 "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 Burn > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced > Date: 19 September 1998 12:18 > > Eric wrote: > > I cannot accept the assertion > David B: > > Again: L72B1 does not require us to make any judgement at all about > what the player intended. It does not even require us to make a > judgement about what the player actually knew. All that is required is > for us to make a judgement about what the player could have known. > Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but > I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one > exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could > easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was > likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner > up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I > attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest > that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with > impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East > opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for > the actual South player to resist. ++++ Allowing all of David's estimates of the facts and the character of the player, there is still truly a problem. The player needed to link the bid out of rotation to the psychic if he was to judge it likely the irregularity would damage the non-offending side. Without that link it is preposterous to suggest he could think it likely since it is just another bid out of rotation. But David allows that the realisation came along after opponent opened and if this is our finding offender could not have known *at the time of his irregularity* (sic). David thinks the psychic was unfair play or unethical. That runs up against Law 72A5; maybe the action is unsporting, maybe David and a host of others are right to condemn it, but the laws have not taken up that position yet. In the rush to vilify the player's action we should keep our cool and avoid any accusation that it was illegal :otherwise we put ourselves in the recently discussed position of giving our own emotional response priority above the law. Of course, if David had said he was unable to tell whether the player might have thought of the psyche before he called out of rotation...................... ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 17:55:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:55:16 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA20373 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:55:09 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.158] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zKeLN-0003yJ-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:55:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bde46b$7d5fb5e0$9e2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:51:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: [snip] >++++ Allowing all of David's estimates of the facts and the character >of the player, there is still truly a problem. The player needed to link >the bid out of rotation to the psychic if he was to judge it likely the >irregularity would damage the non-offending side. Without that link >it is preposterous to suggest he could think it likely since it is just >another bid out of rotation. But David allows that the realisation came >along after opponent opened and if this is our finding offender could >not have known *at the time of his irregularity* (sic). Well, at least the source of confusion is now clearly identified. I have said all along that the player did not know. I have never said that he could not have known (and I believe that this particular player could). If what Grattan (and Eric, and others) feel is that the Laws ought to require us to examine the actual state of mind of the actual player at the time of his infraction, then I do not say they are wrong. If they feel that the Laws at present require this...well, what I think of that is not difficult to deduce. When Senators have had their sport... From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 18:26:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:26:52 +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 SAA20444 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:26:44 +1000 Received: from modem54.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zKes8-0000JZ-00; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:29:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Steve Willner" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 09:28:06 +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: Adam Wildavsky > > At 5:25 AM -0400 9/18/98, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > > > > >Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > I do have a question about your proposal. Do you intend your formula to be > used when applying the existing Laws, or only when applying Law 12C3, or > are you proposing it for adoption at the next revision of the Laws? ++++ I would say the Laws are the wrong site for this kind of material. The proper place for guidance on implementation is the regulating authority's material for Directors. For the same reason I consider much recently said about 12C3 is a matter for the regulators; 12C3 sets a principle that ACs be given freedom to exercise bridge judgement in forming an opinion on the equity - which we may be reminded is the equity in the hand as it stood immediately prior to the infraction. How the power is to be exercised - e.g. not at all [:-)] - is something the regulators should take on board. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 19:12:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:12:25 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20536 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:12:18 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-83.uunet.be [194.7.13.83]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23947 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:15:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3604C489.C26B771F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:02:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <488794110eMartin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Pool wrote: > > One pair were ill & left after playing 7 boards. (2 board rounds). > > Is everyone's score factored depending on the number of boards played or do > they get A+ (Root 8X where X= times cross-imped) ? > > -- > Martin Pool This really has nothing to do with cross-imps, but is a problem generally. My personal opinion is that if any pair is absent for any reason for mor than a complete round, then all the consecutive boards, unplayed by this pair, are scored as not played, as if there were a bye. This includes the third board of the set in which they left, and also the missing one(s) in the set they started playing after their return (arrival) if there is insufficient time to play all boards. I don't suppose you are asking how to calculate cross-imps with less results ? (divide by the number of actual results in all cases). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 20 22:27:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:27:08 +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 WAA20855 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:27:00 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h59.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id QAA11803; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:30:04 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3605900E.469@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:30:23 -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: Psyche when partner is silenced References: <000e01bde46b$7d5fb5e0$9e2d63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_6.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_6.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) 1. The only David Burn's arguments I do not like and do not agree are: "Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for the actual South player to resist." For two reasons: - it does not matter at all who was this very player, - I would not like to be introduced before unknown people without possibility to hear and to react As it was said - neither person not intention are relevant. The only problem is "could he know" or "he could not know" 2. From the other hand it seems to me that Jesper Dybdal was right when wrote: "With a silenced partner, the concept of a convention disappears. As someone said, bidding with a silenced partner can be compared to Declarer's card play. We do not accuse Declarers of illegal signalling methods because they choose their cards in order to confuse the opponents." Really, bridge actions in similar situations are based rather on common bridge sense and logics then on agreements. But simultaneously with such understanding there appear two problems: - un-risky situation that was born by this player's previous infraction - possibility of applying L72B1 3. I dare to remind one well-known example: You (South) bid after long solely bidding of your pair the grand Slam in Club. Before final Pass West slightly awkwardly lifted cards laying before him and dropped on the table five cards, four (including 10 of Clubs) faces up. TD, called by you, explained that all these cards were the senior penalty cards and so long, and so forth... You chose 10 of Clubs as card of lead, and North spreaded his hand. Let us introduce your joint hands: KJ1095 84 Ax K973 ---------- AQ2 AK7 KQ7 AQ85 You saw, that due extremely strong Spade (you in no way could get to know about it during the bidding) the grand NT Slam was cold - without playing. The Grand in Clubs depended on Club distribution. Then you played small Club, East - small Club, and you won with the Queen. Further you decided, that it was improbable that among incidentally faced cards of West just 10 of Clubs was the only trump card in his hand. Therefore you played in the second trick A of Clubs, thinking that (if East showed out of Clubs) to finess Jack of Clubs throw West. However unfortunately it was West that had no Clubs more... And on your question how could it happened that it had been appeared his only Club card, he answered, that he always distributed in his hand long suits inside and short suits - outside. Yeah - it is Alcatraz (this coup was mention several days ago in another thread). But this very player made the infraction absolutely incidentally. And what?:) Every arguments - without any exceptions - from our 1Heart-discussion might be applied to this case. Will anybody of disputants argue against adjusting? I guess that all of us will decide: "Just made" - and warn West. But almost the only difference between this case and from our discussion is that Alcatraz is well-known and judged years before. And it does not matter that this very West really made it innocently - adjusted score. The another (and last one) difference with our case is that 1Heart-case is more complex, consisting from several consequent doings. With the same essence - receiving unrisky advantage. Let us agree that AC should decide the case for possibility of applying L72B1 - and I am sure that a most of AC will decide: "Adjusted score - 6Diamonds, just made". Nevertheless there may be AC that will decide "Result stands". Happens... Once upon a time E.Kaplan said something like (sorry, I do not remember his exact words): "AC may make such a decision, then close the case and forget it. But if the AC makes such decision then this AC may believe to everything and one should elect another AC". Sorry for being rather harsh and nasty - I really see no difference with Alcatraz. That's why: no accusation, just prophylactic adjusting in accordance with spirit of bridge (L72B1). And our arguments are repeating... We do not hear each other:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 00:29:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:24 +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 AAA23415 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:18 +1000 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.42]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980920143219.YBNA2535.fep4@ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3606fc62.1474249@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.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 Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:20:40 -0400, Bill Segraves wrote: >It is unfortunate that a player who believes he is exercising his rights >under L72A5 may complete a series of actions which place him under the >aegis of L72B1. Unless one defines "advantageous to their side" in a >particularly legalistic way, it seems clear that there is a conflict >(presumably resulting from the relatively late metamorphosis of L73B1 = into >its present form) between L72A5 and L72B1 which should be resolved. = >From >my perspective, the solution is a relatively simple one: just as L72A5 >rights are subject to limitation by L16C2, so can they be subject to >limitation by L73B1. My solution is that L72A5 gives the _player_ the right (and thus IMO almost duty) to try to score well after the irregularity, while L72B1 under certain circumstances ("could have known...") gives the _TD_ the right to take away a good score _afterwards_. If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 00:29:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:41 +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 AAA23429 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:35 +1000 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.42]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980920143241.YBNL2535.fep4@ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:41 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <361a1162.6850280@post12.tele.dk> References: <002a01bde41f$c4c1db80$342d63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <002a01bde41f$c4c1db80$342d63c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:49:31 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >I would be interested to learn, if anyone on the list can help me, how >this Law is translated into other languages - German in particular, >since that is a language with which I have some acquaintance, but >Danish and others would also be of value. Danish translation implies Grattan's interpretation. It can be translated almost literally back to "It is appropriate for a player...". The 1987 laws were translated in the same way. When we were translating the 1997 laws, I certainly never considered that it might be wrong. This and many other discussions here makes it clear to me that we should urge the WBFLC to use as many words as it takes to make their meaning completely clear, also to people with less than perfect knowledge of English. The laws need to be understandable all over the world, but they do not need to be short or elegantly phrased. =46ortunately it seems that Grattan (at least to some extent) agrees with that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 00:29:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:32 +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 AAA23422 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:29:25 +1000 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.42]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980920143230.YBNI2535.fep4@ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:30 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36160deb.5963555@post12.tele.dk> References: <004f01bde427$ce6ab8c0$342d63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <004f01bde427$ce6ab8c0$342d63c3@david-burn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:47:03 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >[DALB] >This, typically for Jesper, is an interesting argument that is >actually quite deep. Thanks, but it was really Steve's argument: On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >Perhaps the Laws should also ban false cards by declarer. Back to David: >But, if the bidding goes: 2D on the right - cancelled, >back to partner who opens 1D - and now the 2D bidder volunteers 1H >which may be hearts or spades, I have no idea what my methods are. Nor >is it reasonable to expect that I should have any idea. I may think >about it and decide that penalty doubles are probably better than >negative, but how am I to be sure that partner is thinking the same >thoughts? This is quite true. Theoretically, I might say that everybody should "of course" be prepared to play against a partnership with one silenced player, and should therefore have discussed that problem. In reality, of course, the disadvantage to the NOS that they have no agreed defense may turn out to be greater than the disadvantage to the OS that they cannot bid as a pair. It seems to me that if this problem is to be solved, it should not be done by blaming Richard for his 1H bid made under the current rules, but rather by (a) changing the laws to not use "pass throughout" as a penalty - it is this penalty that basically causes the problem, or (b) adding a law that somehow limits the calls allowed by a player with a silenced partner, or (c) making it standard procedure for a TD who imposes a "pass throughout" penalty to inform the opponents that this means that the partner is free to bid as tactically as he wants and to give the opponents a few minutes to agree on their defensive methods in this situation. (a) could be done by simply removing the penalty; the BOOT is UI to partner. (b) could be something like "when your partner is silenced, a bid of a suit may be made only on a hand with at least 4 cards of the suit" as an exception to L40A and as part of the penalty. Note that a regulation by the SO is not enough, since it is not partnership agreements we're regulating. (c) would probably be too confusing and time-consuming. Neither of these possibilities is perfect. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 00:33:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:33:00 +1000 Received: from cayenne.fx.bmarts.com (qmailr@cayenne.fx.bmarts.com [128.11.250.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA23461 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:32:55 +1000 Message-Id: <199809201432.AAA23461@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 17822 invoked from network); 20 Sep 1998 15:00:58 -0000 Received: from sage.fx.bmarts.com (HELO client.bmarts.com) (128.11.250.53) by cayenne.fx.bmarts.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 1998 15:00:58 -0000 X-Sender: postmaster@bluemountain.com (Chyah and Kent Burghard - as entered by sender) From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com (Chyah and Kent Burghard) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 98 08:00:33 -00700 (PDT) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Laws List) Subject: Shanah Tovah - from Chyah and Kent Burghard Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Guess what!! You have just received an animated greeting card from Chyah and Kent Burghard You can pick up your personal greeting by connecting to the following WWW Address http://www.bluemountain.com/cards/box3593c/jfv2ivxxkbcixs.htm (Your greeting card will be available for the next 60 days) This service is FREE! :) HAVE a good day and have fun! ____________________________________________________________ Accessing your card indicates your agreement with our Website Rules posted at the bottom of the following Web location: (You're welcome to send a free card to someone at this location) http://www.bluemountain.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 03:33:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 03:33:28 +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 DAA24069 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 03:33:21 +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 KAA09262 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809201735.KAA09262@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Law 7 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:31:11 -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 L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own except by permission of the Director. L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the hands? While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see that this accords with L7C. Opinions would be appreciated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 03:50:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 03:50:40 +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 DAA24133 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 03:50:35 +1000 Received: from ip39.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.39]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980920175342.YJIP2535.fep4@ip39.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:53:42 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:53:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <361e40b6.18965400@post12.tele.dk> References: <004f01bde427$ce6ab8c0$342d63c3@david-burn> <36160deb.5963555@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36160deb.5963555@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 16:32:31 +0200, I wrote: >(c) making it standard procedure for a TD who imposes a "pass >throughout" penalty to inform the opponents that this means that >the partner is free to bid as tactically as he wants and to give >the opponents a few minutes to agree on their defensive methods >in this situation. But my brain must have been turned off: letting players discuss their system after they've seen their cards is not a good idea! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 07:08:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:08:28 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24547 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:08:22 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10177 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:11:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809202111.RAA00423@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3605900E.469@elnet.msk.ru> (vitold@elnet.msk.ru) Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold writes: > 3. I dare to remind one well-known example: [C K973 opposite AQ85] > Further you decided, that > it was improbable that among incidentally faced cards of West > just 10 of Clubs was the only trump card in his hand. Therefore > you played in the second trick A of Clubs, thinking that (if East > showed out of Clubs) to finess Jack of Clubs throw West. However > unfortunately it was West that had no Clubs more... And on your > question how could it happened that it had been appeared his only > Club card, he answered, that he always distributed in his hand long > suits inside and short suits - outside. Since you would not normally have been entitled to take advantage of the position a card came from in the player's hand, you have no recourse if you attempted to draw an inference from the position of the dropped cards. There is a probability argument. When West dropped the CT, you could pick up JTxx with West or J642 with East, which made the finesse against West more likely even though West had nine unknown cards and East thirteen. Is this the basis for the Alcatraz coup idea? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 07:14:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:14:31 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24578 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:14:22 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zKqrE-00041A-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:17:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:16:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <199809201735.KAA09262@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809201735.KAA09262@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the >board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During >that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >except by permission of the Director. > >L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time >subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the >board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > >Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, >can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the >hands? > >While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs >hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see >that this accords with L7C. If an opponent refused me permission to look at his hand (which is after all illegal) I'd explain that I'm calling the Diretor to ask his permission. As the Director I would grant the permission unequivocally and then ask why he wanted to do this. Frequent requests could end up with a refusal. Cheers john > >Opinions would be appreciated. > >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 Mon Sep 21 08:40:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:40:34 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24801 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:40:28 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id RAA25187; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980911081811.006f3a44@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980908080756.006e03b8@pop.cais.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:18:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:18 AM -0400 9/11/98, Eric Landau wrote: >AFAIK (and I'd probably know) there's no official regulation. The ACBL's >position on psyches was presented to its membership in an article in the >ACBL Bulletin about 20 years ago. Most of that article is repeated >verbatim in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge ("Psychic Bidding"). > >The article sets out a clear blueprint for ruling against anyone who psychs >in any circumstances: "People who employ psychic calls against less >experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and thereby >be in violation of League regulations. People who psych against their >peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching, or of having an unannounced >partnership understanding. People who psych against more experienced >players... may lose the few good boards they get by being judged to have >indulged in unsportsmanlike psyching, or to have disrupted the game." > >It then goes on to expound at length on how psychers can be found to be in >violation of L40B. At one point it says, "Where psychic bids are >concerned, however, the nature of the bid or call is such that the need to >disclose implicit understandings has the effect of practically preventing >their use." > >It's a long article, and gives much insight into the ACBL's view of psychs. The article, written by Don Oakie and published early in 1978, resulted in some confusion, so the Bulletin followed up with a discussion of the topic in a Henry Francis interview with Oakie. The best response to that appeared in a subsequent Bulletin's "Letters to the Editor" section: Thanks for the Bulletin's clever Clarification endeavor; "It's legal to psyche As much as you like, So long as you like to psyche NEVER." - Edgar Kaplan, New York City -- Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 10:38:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:38:49 +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 KAA25043 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:38:43 +1000 Received: from client254e.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.78] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zKu35-0005us-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:41:51 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Revoke by declarer Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 01:45:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde4f9$223db160$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 Declarer (North) has just failed to follow suit to a Diamond led from dummy, overruffing the small trump played by West. The trick is quitted. Before a card is played to the next trick Dummy asks- "having no Diamonds?" Of course Declarer said yes, and you are called. Law 61B says Dummy may ask (Law 43 does not apply) Law 42 says Dummy may ask. Law 43Ab says, subject to exceptions in Law 42 Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play. Question. After the trick has been quit, is it too late for dummy to ask?. Are we now, during the play.? How do you rule? If it is not too late for Dummy to ask, when does it become too late? I assume that if a card has been played by declarer to the next trick the revoke is established.(Law 63). Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 11:51:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:51:09 +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 LAA25186 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:51:03 +1000 Received: from total.net (ppp-annex-0232.que.total.net [205.236.100.186]) by bretweir.total.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA06641 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3605B1A3.4B2B6DC9@total.net> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:53:40 -0400 From: "André Pion" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 7 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <199809201735.KAA09262@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > French" writes > >L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the > >board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During > >that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own > >except by permission of the Director. > > > >L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time > >subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the > >board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > > > >Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, > >can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the > >hands? > > > >While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs > >hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see > >that this accords with L7C. > > If an opponent refused me permission to look at his hand (which is after > all illegal) I'd explain that I'm calling the Diretor to ask his > permission. As the Director I would grant the permission unequivocally > and then ask why he wanted to do this. Frequent requests could end up > with a refusal. Cheers john > > > If I were called at a table I would not give permission to look at an opponent hand without a good reason; my goal is to stop discussions of hands at tables these slow movements . People discuss too much and it is dangerous that the discussion be heard at a close table. A. Pion From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 14:07:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:07:14 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA25393 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:07:10 +1000 Received: from maths-pc6.maths.utas.edu.au (maths-pc6.maths.utas.edu.au [131.217.60.69]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA27974 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:10:20 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:10:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980921141348.0fe7daae@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 21/09/98 +0100, Anne Jones wrote: >Declarer (North) has just failed to follow suit to a Diamond led from >dummy, overruffing the small trump played by West. The trick is quitted. >Before a card is played to the next trick Dummy asks- "having no >Diamonds?" >Of course Declarer said yes, and you are called. >Law 61B says Dummy may ask (Law 43 does not apply) >Law 42 says Dummy may ask. >Law 43Ab says, subject to exceptions in Law 42 Dummy may not call >attention to an irregularity during the play. > >Question. > >After the trick has been quit, is it too late for dummy to ask?. Are we >now, "during the play"? How do you rule? The play period is defined by Law 41 to begin once the opening lead is faced. Law 9A2B1 and Law 43A1b both require that dummy not draw attention to any "irregularity during play". An irregularity occurs when a "deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws" occurs, from the Definitions section. An irregularity has occured if a card that was not allowed to be played to a trick was played to the trick. However the information that the card played was irregular is not yet known to the players. If an incorrect card was played, it is not yet an irregularity. Hence there is no contradiction between dummy's right to enquire about a possible revoke, and the requirement not to draw attention to an irregularity during play. The quitting of the trick does not end "the play", though I note that the end of play is not defined in the laws. Play is said to cease in the event of a claim (L68), but under normal circumstances, the only inference that play has a conclusion is from L66D, and that only 13 leads are possible in a hand. >If it is not too late for Dummy to ask, when does it become too late? I >assume that if a card has been played by declarer to the next trick the >revoke is established.(Law 63). It becomes too late for dummy to ask once it demonstrated to be an irregularity... this certainly occurs when declarer shows with another card in the relevant suit. However a potential revoke is established by declarer or dummy's play to the next trick, but since the previous play is _not_yet_shown_ to be an irregularity, dummy may query. The only outcome would be to clarify that a revoke had or had not occured, however! Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 17:06:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:06:43 +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 ESMTP id RAA25715 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:06:26 +1000 Received: from [194.222.115.176] (helo=coruncanius.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zL06E-0000fN-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:09:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:59:33 +0100 To: daniel@unc.edu Cc: Richard Lighton , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New contributor In-Reply-To: <13826.41586.646642.35825@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <13826.41586.646642.35825@mjollnir.net.unc.edu>, daniel@unc.edu writes >Richard Lighton writes: > > > However, you have failed in one of your duties as a new contributor > > to this group. > > > > Do you have any cats, and if so what are their names? > > >At the obvious risk of offending many here ... I do not have cats and >I do not particularly like cats. Labeo: You have not offended the insignificant human beings but the cats will let you know about it. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 17:06:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:06:32 +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 ESMTP id RAA25714 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:06:26 +1000 Received: from [194.222.115.176] (helo=coruncanius.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zL06E-0004AY-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:09:31 +0000 Message-ID: <$iGkdHAKoKB2EwNr@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 08:08:58 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Tenth Extract WBF LC Minutes In-Reply-To: <199809191828.LAA08015@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I wrote: >> >> >It all reminds me of the failure of TDs to enforce the ACBL >> >regulation about legible convention cards being on the table. >orced at NABCs. Blaiss said >"Well, Marv, there are lots of regulations in this world that are >not enforced." And this answer was endorsed by CEO Green! > >Now, what do you suggest I do next? > Labeo: Come to Europe? Try Australia? South Africa is a freshly opened up scene........ -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 17:13:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:13:52 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA25742 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:12:40 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip [193.125.70.58]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id LAA29416 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:07:30 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199809210707.LAA29416@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:07:03 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > 14 tables, cross-imps, so 13 comparisons. > > What do you do when a board is unplayable at a table? Do you factor > the other scores? How do you give A+? A-? > > In England we have a standard fine of 3 imps in an ordinary teams > event. How do you translate this into cross-imps? > > How do you show the scores? Do you divide the total by anything? Is > it meaningful if you don't? > > Anything else? In Russia we divide the result to the number of comparisons and give +2/-2 for A+/A- both in Cross-Imps and buttler. Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 17:18:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:18:16 +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 RAA25761 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:18:10 +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 AAA24971 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809210720.AAA24971@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:17:24 -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 Anne Jones wrote: > > Declarer (North) has just failed to follow suit to a Diamond led from > dummy, overruffing the small trump played by West. The trick is quitted. > Before a card is played to the next trick Dummy asks- "having no > Diamonds?" > Of course Declarer said yes, and you are called. > Law 61B says Dummy may ask (Law 43 does not apply) > Law 42 says Dummy may ask. > Law 43Ab says, subject to exceptions in Law 42 Dummy may not call > attention to an irregularity during the play. > > Question. > > After the trick has been quit, is it too late for dummy to ask?. Are we > now, during the play.? How do you rule? > > If it is not too late for Dummy to ask, when does it become too late? I > assume that if a card has been played by declarer to the next trick the > revoke is established.(Law 63). > I believe this was a matter of discussion some time back on BLML. As I remember, the answer was that until declarer has let go of his card it is not played and the irregularity has not yet occurred. Dummy can therefore ask the question in order to prevent an irregularity. After the card is played, it's too late for dummy to say anything, as that would be calling attention to an irregularity. Of course declarer can correct a mistake on his own before playing to the next trick, but not with any help from dummy. Contrary to popular belief, L45C2's requirement that declarer must play a card that is held face up at or near the table, even touching it, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played, does not mean that the card *is* played by such action. It's not played until he lets go of it. Yes, he must play it, I suppose, but he can retract it to correct an illegal play (L47B). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 17:30:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:30:52 +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 RAA25790 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:30:48 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p26.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.178]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA00749 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:33:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921173314.007094d4@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:33:14 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Subsequent v consequent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the *only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 19:41:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:41:25 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA26059 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:41:16 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f7.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.247]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA21332 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:44:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:48:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde544$f7ed41e0$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 Law 7 repeatedly uses the word "shall". This indicates that the correct procedure is.... There are fines available to a TD for failure to follow correct procedure. However I am aware that in the Bridge playing world this is one of the most ignored of the Laws. It is difficult to break the habits of a lifetime of players, but as Marv has already found it is easier to regulate from within, than without! Why not become a TD Marv? I teach newcomers to the game, to behave in a duplicate session, before they ever get to one. This means that they know that they may LOOK but they may not TOUCH. Before the cards are returned to the board, I allow the question "May I see your hand?" (Because they are beginners they do not remember what they have just seen). They can be shown but they may not touch. >From experience I have found in the real game, as John(Maddog)Prost pointed out, Allowing discussion results in conversation being heard at other tables. Also allowing hands to cross the board results in misboarding, and taking someone else's cards out of the board is most inflamatory, as it usually indicated dissaproval of some action. If I am called because someone wants to check that an infraction has not ocurred, then I am most helpful. This is the way it should be. In anwer to your question:- It is a commonly held belief in this area, among more experienced players, that it's OK as long as they have asked. I make it quite clear that this is not a proper question, and that permission may not be given. Cheers Anne -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French Subject: Law 7 >Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, >can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the >hands? > >While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs >hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see >that this accords with L7C. > >Opinions would be appreciated. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 22:40:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:40:38 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26700 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:40:31 +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 IAA11964 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921084451.00717e34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:44:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <002c01bde3bd$71264720$0d3563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 9/19/98 +0100, David wrote: >Clearly Jesper's answer to the question "May you change your system >without prior disclosure - indeed, re-invent your system at the >table - as a result of your own infraction?" is "Yes". I am not quite >certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose >this on the convention card? May you change your system?? Disclose this on the convention card?? IMO this whole area of discussion is very silly. If "general knowledge and experience" doesn't cover the understanding that one does not use one's partnership bidding agreements when one is bidding on one's own rather than in partnership with one's partner, what on earth could it possibly cover? It seems to me that this is so obvious that it would fall within the "general knowledge and experience" of someone who doesn't even play bridge. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 22:57:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:57:05 +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 WAA26775 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:56:58 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA12477 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921090155.00717c84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:01:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <006501bde3be$0b15a060$0d3563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:09 PM 9/19/98 +0100, David wrote: >Steve (before disappearing for ten days+ACE-) wrote: > >+AD4- >+AD4APg- Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx >+AD4APg- >+AD4APg- Partner passes. What action do you take? >+AD4APg- >+AD4APg- What you would like to do, of course, is open 3NT and play there. >+AD4APg- Unhappily, your partnership has the agreement that this opening bid >+AD4APg- denies more than one side guard... >+AD4- >+AD4APg- Now, there has been a fair amount of what I can only describe as >+AD4APg- bleating about this kind of thing on the list so far. Apparently, >if >+AD4APg- anyone actually did this, we would take no action at all. >+AD4- >+AD4-Good grief, I hope not+ACEAIQAh- I think most of us would adjust in an >+AD4-instant under either L23 or 72B1, and I think many would at least >+AD4-consider a PP as well. And I hope everyone would advise the player >+AD4-that this is a really bad idea and not to come back if he is ever >going >+AD4-to do it again. > >If I have misunderstood what others have said, I am sorry. But it >appears to me that people would be happy with the notion that this >hand could open 1C out of turn without intent or malice aforethought, >just as South on the actual problem hand did not act in a premeditated >way when opening 2D. If that had happened, what adjustment would you >give when he next bid 3NT? Result stands: +720/-720 to the OS/NOS. Does anyone out there really think it's "likely" that they'd do better by opening that hand 3NT opposite a barred partner (even given partner's original unforced pass) than by bidding it out normally? Not me! 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 Sep 21 23:00:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:00:00 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26793 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:59:54 +1000 Received: from mike (user-37kbm41.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.129]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24042 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921090125.006f4834@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:01:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980921173314.007094d4@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:33 PM 9/21/98 +1000, Reg wrote: >WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress >for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment >in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently >irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action >commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. > >Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the >*only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an >irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play >or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for >example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were >heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of >a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan >doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? > >Reg. > Not necessarily. Under the thread "Equitable Redress of Misinformation", Herman & Steve appear to have proposed a formula for redress which incorporates a quantified judgement of the degree of NOS culpability into the compensation. Notwithstanding the above decision, this is a perfectly legal approach under the L12C3 "equity" clause, although IMO one of dubious merit. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 23:05:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:05:10 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26840 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:05:04 +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 JAA12823 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921091007.00717d04@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:10:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <007001bde3bf$30add800$0d3563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:18 PM 9/19/98 +0100, David wrote: >Again: L72B1 does not require us to make any judgement at all about >what the player intended. It does not even require us to make a >judgement about what the player actually knew. All that is required is >for us to make a judgement about what the player could have known. >Perhaps it is invidious to introduce personalities at this point, but >I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one >exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could >easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was >likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner >up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I >attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest >that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with >impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East >opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for >the actual South player to resist. I think perhaps David has indirectly undermined his own case here. If we are to ignore intent, if we are to eschew mind-reading entirely, how can it then make any difference whatsoever who the South player was, or how well anyone knows him? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 23:23:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:23:55 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26906 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:23:47 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA24930; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:26:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024897; Mon Sep 21 08:25:43 1998 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE541.88544160@har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:23:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE541.88544160@har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Jesper Dybdal'" Subject: RE: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:23:43 -0400 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal[SMTP:jesper@dybdal.dk] [PS to David (Burn): my software does not like the utf-7 character set encoding that you used in this and some other posts - if others have the same problem it might be a good idea to use a more common encoding, e.g. quoted printable or plain 7-bit text.] -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). I also had great difficulty in reading the original post...it was filled with extraneous characters in mid line and whenever a parenthesis was used. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 21 23:37:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:37:16 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26965 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:37:09 +1000 Received: from default (client092b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.9.43]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA22074; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:40:13 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde4b0$ffb3ea80$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 EndicottWell, at least the source of confusion is now clearly identified. I >have said all along that the player did not know. I have never said >that he could not have known (and I believe that this particular >player could). If what Grattan (and Eric, and others) feel is that the >Laws ought to require us to examine the actual state of mind of the >actual player at the time of his infraction, then I do not say they >are wrong. If they feel that the Laws at present require this...well, >what I think of that is not difficult to deduce. When Senators have >had their sport... > ++++ If the facts are such as to deny the possibility that he knew at the time of the infraction then he could not have known. The time lapse here, if accepted to be the case, severs the infraction from the realisation that advantage could be gained out of it. If, on the other hand, the possibility is contemplated that when he bid out of turn he did maybe realise a subsequent action could turn it to his likely advantage, then he could have known (which is not to say he *did* know). My private thought is that David is close to this position in his mind but not in his published judgement. I do think it is subject matter on which to reflect and perhaps advance the law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 00:03:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:03:26 +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 AAA27053 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:03:18 +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 KAA15112 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921100821.0071ca08@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:08:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> References: <3607ba5d.3758143@post12.tele.dk> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:20 PM 9/19/98 -0400, Bill wrote: >I am surprised to find that there seems to be significant disagreement over >the interpretation of L72B1. Imo, if the WBFLC had meant for the director >to use his judgment as to intent, they would have written "that an offender >demonstrably knew" or "that an offender probably knew". They instead wrote >"that an offender *could* have known." It seems clear to me that the >intent of the committee was to *remove* intent from the equation. Had they written that, L72B1 would be redundant to L72B2, and wouldn't have been written. I find it significant that the need for L72B1 seems to have arisen only after a certain SO was threatened with a lawsuit for slandering a player by enforcing L72B2 (which was L72B1 at the time), thus asserting publically that the player had committed "a serious breach of propriety" without any proof -- that would meet legal standards -- that he did so. >They presumably did this out of recognition that it is surely not in the >best interests of the game for the director to be obliged to explicitly or >implicitly accuse a pair of deliberate impropriety in order to make an >adjustment when there might have been damage. L72B1 is simply an >extension, and imo a very good extension, of the principles that Kaplan >laid out in 1964 for dealing with other potential improprieties. It is surely not in the best interests of the game for our SOs to be bankrupted by lawsuits brought by players subjected to unprovable explicit accusations of deliberate impropriety. But it might very well be in best interests of the game to subject the one player in 100 who commits an infraction with apparent intent to an implicit (and thus lawsuit-proof) accusation of deliberate impropriety in preference to punishing the other 99 twice for the same infraction. >The >reality is that intent is deceptively difficult to discern and even more >difficult to prove. The capacity to make an adjustment without a finding >of intent is the best tool a director or committee has to ensure that >violations of the proprieties don't become profitable. Of more subtle, but >perhaps equal importance, is that it is also the best tool for ensuring >that considerations as to evidence of deliberate impropriety are not >subjugated to the interests of protecting the non-offending side from >damage. Which is why we use "apparent intent" rather than "actual intent" as the criterion: The latter can never be proven. "Apparent intent" means that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we will treat it as a duck, while acknowledging that it might not be a duck. I'm sure some will object to the difficulty of judging even "apparent intent". But (I've been holding this back, but here it comes...), for some of the participants in this thread, at least, it must be no harder than judging "likely"... Let's go back to the original case. That offender was 6-5 in the blacks with two jacks. Some have tried to argue that he "could have known.... that the irregularity would be *likely* to damage the NOS". "Likely" that he'd be better off by getting in a one-level lead-director and then giving the opponents a free run to the contract of their choice than by preempting vigourously, possibly finding a profitable save, after giving partner a chance to act with a fit for either black suit (when, even, he might very well have been able to get the lead-director in in such an auction)? Feh! The real problem with L72B1 in real life is that it provides yet another weapon for those who believe that the laws should be stretched and twisted in whatever way is necessary to insure that someone who commits an infraction gets a bad score no matter what. And this thread has proven to me just how powerful a weapon L72B1 can be in those hands. 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 Sep 22 00:58:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:58:17 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29415 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:58:11 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA17235 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921110314.00720ff4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:03:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3606fc62.1474249@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:32 PM 9/20/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly >to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to >ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the >player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. Why should it be *anyone's* obligation to "ensure" that a player who has committed an infraction get a bad score? Nothing in the laws -- opinions of some to the contrary --suggests that he *must* get a bad score. When we apply L72B1 (taken at face value), we must apply three rather stringent tests: "could have known", "likely to damage", and "gained an advantage". Any of these might not be met, and even when they are all met the offender might yet wind up with a fine score. Otherwise why not just take the ACBL's latest approach: If there's nothing else in the laws that lets us "ensure" that he gets a bad score, cite L90A and give the f----r a PP. 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 Sep 22 01:20:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:20:30 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29480 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:20:23 +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 LAA17991 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921112526.007216d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:25:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <199809201735.KAA09262@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:31 AM 9/20/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the >board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During >that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >except by permission of the Director. > >L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time >subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the >board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > >Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, >can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the >hands? > >While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs >hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see >that this accords with L7C. > >Opinions would be appreciated. What's customary around here (and seems reasonable and sensible) is: (a) A player who wishes to see another player's hand may do so if that player gives him permission. (b) Until the round ends, if permission is not granted, the player may call the TD, who will allow inspection of the hand only if the player's reason for wanting to see it is appropriate (for example, if he believes there may have been an infraction and wishes to verify it; not, say, because he wants to estimate how well he did on the hand). (c) After the round ends, any hand may be inspected freely without permission (subject to the obvious contraints, e.g. that doing so does not "delay or obstruct the game"). That's clearly *not* what the law says, but Marv asked about what is customary. Around here, anyone who objected to customary practice based on the letter of the law would probably be upheld by a TD (who would issue a pro forma warning to the violator), but would also earn himself a reputation as an incorrigible bridge lawyer. 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 Sep 22 01:45:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:45:32 +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 ESMTP id BAA29542 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:45:26 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zL8CX-0004ep-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:48:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:36:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <199809210544.WAA15276@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am putting this back onto blml, after having a private correspondence with Marv regarding looking at the hands after the cards have been returned to the slots. Marv had raised the point regarding "does he need permission of the TD to do so provided a member of each side is present", and I had opined that he did. Marv then pointed out Marv: > >Notice the titles of 7B and 7C, which clearly show that each covers >a different phase, 7B during the play, and 7C after cards are >returned to the board. I feel that the language of 7B has nothing >to do with what happens after the cards are returned to the board, >when 7C takes over. Looking at L7C, it only requires the presence >of an opponent or the TD, nothing about permission from either one. > MadDog: I'd not considered this aspect before. 7B *does* contain the phrase "during or *after* play" and I have always construed that as "after the cards have been returned" as well. On reflection I am inclined to agree with your interpretation however. We all know why the law exists - to prevent mis-boarding. We all know about the pest who pulls cards out of the board after play and then puts the curtain card (we use a slip of card with the hand record in the UK in each slot) back in the wrong slot. I fine for that *always*. Question: Should we construe "after play you may look provided members of both side are present" or should we construe "the TD's permission is required"? I appreciate that in most cases a polite request to the oppo is sufficient, and that TDs take no action in this case. 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 Tue Sep 22 02:32:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:32:06 +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 CAA29815 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:31:59 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA12956; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:34:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012905; Mon Sep 21 11:34:10 1998 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE55B.DD371080@har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE55B.DD371080@har-pa1-23.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'David Burn'" , Grattan Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:26:40 -0400 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] I am wholly convinced that the player did not know, when he opened 2D out of turn, that he would shortly find himself in a position to bid 1H. I do not believe that he opened 2D out of turn just in case it went 1D on his left so that he could bid 1H over it. I am equally convinced that his action in opening 2D out of turn was based on nothing more nefarious than his erroneous belief that he was the dealer. ###I find it most disturbing that since you know the player well and still believe that he did NOT envision the possibility of advantage from his BOOT, that you would even consider stretching the Law to punish conduct that was attendant upon an inadvertant error and that has already been punished in the prescribed manner by the Laws. Since he didn't even intend to bid out of turn, how could he have considered, let alone "known" (been aware) that such a BOOT could work to his advantage. The law says "could have known" rather than "knew" or "probably knew" to avoid making a judgement on a players ethics in a doubtful single instance. A good player conceivably could have known that ANY action following ANY infraction "could have" in some arcane circumstance have worked to his advantage. This does NOT mean that you are not allowed to play bridge after an irregularity or that you are not allowed to ever get a good result thereafter. If there is nothing to turn the action from green to amber, why do you insist on making it red?### >Otherwise he only >thought of the potential advantage considerably later than his infraction, >not *at the time of*. I firmly believe that this is exactly what happened. ###Then he could not have been aware of advantage at infraction time if he didn't think of it until later. If you haven't thought about something at a given time, you could not have known it at that time. (Unless you mean I could have known how to speak fluent German today if I had studied in past...therefore since I did not understand the statement in German I must face a penalty because I could have known.) (snip)### As with most of the Laws, what often happens is that the innocent but clumsy get punished for our desire to catch the villains. But I prefer this to the alternative, since it is far more in keeping with the Laws of a game - the law of the land has a wholly different set of imperatives. ###I heartily disagree. It is absurd to punish the many innocent to ensnare an occasional guilty party. The ethicless individual who would take such improper advantage will likely give himself away by a pattern of behaviour or by gross offenses in time. The innocent party on the other hand will be sorely offended...and rightly so. It is not that life, limb or property are at stake here. We can afford to give the villain more rope with which to hang himself in bridge...no one will die. Excessive infringement on players' rights to play intelligent bridge can only drive the innovative and talented out of our game. Do we really want the average age of a bridge player to be 82? Good on you Richard...shame on those who would try to demean your ability to think on your feet. Craig (David...I could have bought this round...does that mean I did? Or even considered it? If so, then it's your turn to buy! :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 03:07:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:07:35 +1000 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29928 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:07:29 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-16.tc-1.hou.smartworld.net [12.14.108.16]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25613845 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3606894F.3B7A14E4@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:13:52 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced References: <01bde2f0$eae75720$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Much has been made of villainy in this thread. Is villainy a condition for adjustment? Yes. Is it a necessary condition? No. Much has been made of the intent of the perpetrator. If the perpetrator intended to create a situation from which he could have benefited, is this a condition for adjustment? Yes. Is a necessary condition? No. Nevertheless, intent goes to determining whether villainy has taken place and villainy is not a necessary condition for adjustment. It is not necessary to determine the matter of villainy immediately, though the matter can be laid to rest if it is self evident that no extra time needs to be consumed. What does need to be determined is if an adjustment is in order. A large number of posts claim that the applicable law in this case after a bid out of turn is not accepted is L72B1. Yet L31 refers to L23 [L72B1 is referred to by L23]. While the two sound similar, a major difference between the two is that L23 places a necessary condition that the penalty for an irregularity includes an enforced pass by partner. The language addresses directly what should be done if the effect of the penalty [enforced pass] is to damage the NOS. This is far different from L72B1 which does not have the condition, it speaks of the effect of damage by the irregularity itself as opposed to the effect of the penalty. It is my opinion that L72B1 does not apply in this instance. The changed call to 1H was a legal call. However, it is the enforced pass [as opposed to the irregularity itself] that caused the damage. Hence, L23 is the appropriate vehicle to address this damage. However, this does not preclude finding that L72B1 and/ or L72B2 were breached which would cause appropriate action to be taken. [ aside- The facts of this case do not indicate that that these provisions apply]. There has been mention that the perpetrator feels that if a similar situation should occur again, that he feels compelled to take extreme care to not perpetrate such a coup. While I do see how even a second such instance may be cause for his ethics to be questioned or cause disciplinary action. I, personally, am not so quick to come to that same conclusion. I do not feel that that there is anything criminal about the coup because it was undertaken at the risk that it would backfire. And indeed, in this case it did [because partner had a hand that would result in disaster- even though it succeeded in getting a good score because of the ruling at the table]. What was criminal in this case was the ruling. It was the enforced pass that damaged the NOS because they did not have the opportunity to double 4H, the normal action by the perpetrator's partner which would have gained 800. I do think that there is a sound foundation for requiring any partner who has been aware that he is capable of such a coup to alert the call and explain that he has been known to bid a void in such circumstances. The reality is that such a coup runs the very strong likelihood that partner has a normal action that could be disastrous and that the NOS gains most of the time in those instances and still comes out normally if they handle the psyche well. Practically, the coup only succeeds in the rare times when in fact partner does not have a hand that blows up. Again, I feel that the only crime in this case is that the ruling erred in not adjusting to 4HX down 800 due to damage by the enforced pass. Roger Pewick Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -----Original Message-----From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 17 September 1998 17:42 > Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced > > >> From: "David Burn" > >> It is my belief that ........... the > >> player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate > >> deception. > > > >Where in the Laws may this "duty" be found? Does it also apply to > >false cards by declarer? > > ++++ Hi Steve, and public........ > > I find myself thinking you are right, and also wrong. David is right > in his view that standards should be set, and you are right that they > are inadequately defined in the laws. It does seem now, though, that we > can no longer go on playing the game according to the gentlemanly > concepts of a Geoffrey Butler and broad expressions of principle. BLML > produces copious evidence thay the attitude of many today is not to > refrain from anything that the law allows, even for want of attention. > And it does not work if significant personalities strive to achieve their > view of standards by simply bending the law. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 03:15:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:15:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29945 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:14:58 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zL9ar-0000pV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:17:46 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 7 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:56:52 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the > board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During > that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own > except by permission of the Director. > > L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time > subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the > board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > > Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, > can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the > hands? > > While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs > hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see > that this accords with L7C. > > Opinions would be appreciated. > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to see > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 03:20:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:20:00 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA29986 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:19:51 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.235] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zL9dQ-0003yR-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:20:24 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bde583$b0d88be0$ec2b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:17:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >I think perhaps David has indirectly undermined his own case here. > >If we are to ignore intent, if we are to eschew mind-reading entirely, how >can it then make any difference whatsoever who the South player was, or how >well anyone knows him? It does not make any difference at all to me; my case is that "could have known" means what it says, and not "did know". We are indeed to ignore intent and eschew mind-reading, for that is what the Laws require. But Grattan and others have argued, somewhat weirdly, that the player could not have known because he did not know. I introduced an analysis of South's character and experience in order to provide some information to people who believe that what this South could have known depends on who this South was - it was not, and is not, any part of my case at all. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 03:46:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:46:39 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00228 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 03:46:29 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.114] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zLA1m-0007Eo-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Craig Senior" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:43:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >###I find it most disturbing that since you know the player well and still >believe that he did NOT envision the possibility of advantage from his >BOOT, that you would even consider stretching the Law to punish conduct >that was attendant upon an inadvertant error and that has already been >punished in the prescribed manner by the Laws. It's not a "stretch", Craig. It does not matter what South did or did not know at the time he opened 2D. I am at a loss to understand the argument that because South did not know something, he could not have known it - but I suppose I must try, because it has been put forward by some eminent authorities. >Since he didn't even intend >to bid out of turn, how could he have considered, let alone "known" (been >aware) that such a BOOT could work to his advantage. >The law says "could have known" rather than "knew" or "probably knew" to >avoid making a judgement on a players ethics in a doubtful single instance. >A good player conceivably could have known that ANY action following ANY >infraction "could have" in some arcane circumstance have worked to his >advantage. This is perfectly true. But if the circumstance in which an infraction "could" work to a player's advantage are indeed "arcane", then I would not consider applying Law 72. Here, though, it is not arcane at all to presume that South could be aware of the potential benefits to be had from silencing his partner before bidding hearts on a void. Let me put it this way. If South after the event had said: "Of course I wanted to psyche in the heart suit, but I thought I had better shut partner up first", how would you have ruled? Now, what did this South do - as far as his bridge actions are concerned - that he would not have done had that been his intention from the outset? If what you do could have been done by a villain, then you are punished for it as if you were a villain. Is this fair? Not really. Is it what the Laws of bridge - or indeed any game - require? Most certainly. Think of a golfer who buys a miniature putter for his two-year old son. If that club is the fifteenth in his bag when he plays the final round of the Open, he will be disqualified even though he could not physically have used the club and had no possibility of deriving any benefit from its presence. >This does NOT mean that you are not allowed to play bridge after >an irregularity or that you are not allowed to ever get a good result >thereafter. If there is nothing to turn the action from green to amber, why >do you insist on making it red?### Green, amber and red have no meaning in this context; they apply to concealed partnership understandings masquerading as psyches or misbids. > >>Otherwise he only >>thought of the potential advantage considerably later than his >infraction, >>not *at the time of*. > >I firmly believe that this is exactly what happened. > >###Then he could not have been aware of advantage at infraction time if he >didn't think of it until later. I will say this once more, and have done. The fact that a player did not know something does not imply - indeed, has nothing to do with - the fact that he could not have known it. >If you haven't thought about something at a >given time, you could not have known it at that time. I don't understand this. If you have not thought of something, that does not mean that you could not have thought of it. > As with >most of the Laws, what often happens is that the innocent but clumsy >get punished for our desire to catch the villains. But I prefer this >to the alternative, since it is far more in keeping with the Laws of a >game - the law of the land has a wholly different set of imperatives. >###I heartily disagree. It is absurd to punish the many innocent to ensnare >an occasional guilty party. No, it's not. That's what the Laws of every game under the sun do (think of the golfer again, or the revoke law). >The ethicless individual who would take such >improper advantage will likely give himself away by a pattern of behaviour >or by gross offenses in time. So he might. But we cannot afford to wait for this to happen. What of the people who are damaged by his behaviour before this "pattern" of which you speak emerges? Individual breaches of the Laws should be handled as and when they occur on a case-by-case basis. >The innocent party on the other hand will be >sorely offended...and rightly so. Only at bridge. In other sports, when people fall foul of absurd rules (like the chap who was disqualified in the Open championship for signing for a 74 instead of a 73 - either score would have won him the tournament), they accept them with good grace and without offence, for they know what the rules say and why they say it. It's just bridge players who set great store by "guilt", "innocence", "equity" and other abstractions which have no place in what is, after all, only a game. >Good on you Richard...shame on those who would try to demean your >ability to think on your feet. That's not exactly what he was on when he thought. >(David...I could have bought this round...does that mean I did? Or even >considered it? If so, then it's your turn to buy! :-)) I'd cheerfully buy you a drink, Craig - if only I could :) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 04:59:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 04:59:56 +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 ESMTP id EAA00475 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 04:59:47 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLBEe-0000Lb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:02:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:01:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please In-Reply-To: <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes > Think of a >golfer who buys a miniature putter for his two-year old son. If that >club is the fifteenth in his bag when he plays the final round of the >Open, he will be disqualified even though he could not physically have >used the club and had no possibility of deriving any benefit from its >presence. > I'd argue it wasn't a golf club at all, since it is unfit for purpose. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 05:02:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:02:06 +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 ESMTP id FAA00511 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:01:53 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLBGY-0005c6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:04:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:03:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes > Marv wrote: > >> L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the >> board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During >> that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >> except by permission of the Director. >> >> L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time >> subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the >> board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." >> >> Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, >> can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the >> hands? >> >> While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs >> hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see >> that this accords with L7C. >> >> Opinions would be appreciated. >> >> ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to see >> another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # >> ########## but only for the purposes of establishing revokes or numbers of tricks won, not because one is bored. IMO This law is not applicable in Marv's scenario -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 05:05:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:05:54 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00549 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:05:46 +1000 Received: from modem107.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.107] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zLBKL-0005Ps-00; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:08:50 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Anna Gudge" , "William J Schoder" , "Valerie Rippon" , "Carol von Linstow" , "ebl laws" , "KOOYMAN" , "Lynn&Dan Hunt" , "ron endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Sandra Claridge" Subject: Gester not funny. Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:06:14 +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) ++++++ The PC bearing the gester@globalnet address has gone down. Broken its back or something. Please address emails to the Hermes address until further notice. ~ Grattan ~ ++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 05:53:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:53:51 +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 FAA00680 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:53:43 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07296 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:47:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809211947.OAA07296@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Equitable redress of Misinformation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:47:41 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B > loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players > will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. > Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do > you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? I assign score 'A' for both sides in all cases. This is despite the fact that I do not agree with Adam W that for the purposes of L40 all we need to do is show the direction of MI and not the amount. If it really is the case that 100% of the player's peers would find the right bid without the MI, then we cannot help but judge that the MI directly caused the iregularity, and we cannot help but adjust for it. The difficult cases are when some of the players peers would have found the right play but some wouldn't--under those circumstances, if the MI changes the percentages only minutely I hold that we cannot judge there to have been any damage [it looks like the player may well have gone wrong anyway], and since there was no damage there is no adjustment. But that's not what happened in this case. Here there was no realistic chance at all for the NOS to go wrong without the MI. Maybe if the odds changed to 99% right, 1% wrong with the MI I might not adjust to 'A'. (Maybe not even then.) But 20% isn't even close. > Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be > score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve > can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the > principles involved.) > > Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. > Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. > Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > > Replies by email to Herman (who will forward copies to Steve) or post > to the mailing list. Thanks. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 05:54:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:54:38 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00695 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:54:32 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA26661 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980921155938.006deec4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:59:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please In-Reply-To: References: <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:01 PM 9/21/98 +0100, John wrote: >In article <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn>, David Burn > writes >> Think of a >>golfer who buys a miniature putter for his two-year old son. If that >>club is the fifteenth in his bag when he plays the final round of the >>Open, he will be disqualified even though he could not physically have >>used the club and had no possibility of deriving any benefit from its >>presence. > >I'd argue it wasn't a golf club at all, since it is unfit for purpose. I wouldn't argue the disqualification, not if the rules said that I may not carry a fifteenth club under any circumstances. But if the rules said that I may not carry a fifteenth club if, at the time I put it in my bag, I could have known that I was likely to gain an advantage by doing so, I would argue until I turned blue. 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 Sep 22 06:21:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:21:30 +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 GAA00762 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:21:21 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19926 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:42:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809211742.MAA19926@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Subsequent v consequent To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:42:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch > > WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress > for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment > in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently > irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action > commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. > > Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the > *only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an > irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play > or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for > example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were > heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of > a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan > doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? > > Reg. > One of the disjuncts was 'irrational'. I am sure that there are people who will consider a revoke to be irrational. If the play of the NOS is really horribly egregious, then there will be people who claim it to be 'irrational' and possible 'wild' as well. This Lille decision only says that there will be no loss of protection due to _normal_ error or misjudgement. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 06:37:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:37:56 +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 GAA00896 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:37:48 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16897 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:18:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809211718.MAA16897@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:18:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 12:18 PM 9/19/98 +0100, David wrote: > > >exception!) does not. I assure you that this particular South could > >easily have known that shutting partner up before psyching hearts was > >likely to work rather better for his side than failing to shut partner > >up before psyching hearts. And again: this does not mean that I > >attribute any wrong-doing to South when he opened 2D, nor do I suggest > >that he actually did it in order to be able to psyche hearts with > >impunity. Once he realised the implications of the position after East > >opened 1D, though, the opportunity would have been much too hard for > >the actual South player to resist. > > I think perhaps David has indirectly undermined his own case here. > > If we are to ignore intent, if we are to eschew mind-reading entirely, how > can it then make any difference whatsoever who the South player was, or how > well anyone knows him? Because the law says "could have known", and we need to ask whether this player _could have known_. Mrs. Guggenheim could not have known that the infraction might work to her advantage--she couldn't even ever have dreamed of following it with a psyche. So if she were being ruled upon here [presumably she became flustered with her mistake and bid hearts accidentally when she really meant 'spades'] we cannot adjust, because we judge that she couldn't have known. David claims that he is certain that this player _could have_ known. He doesn't say that he _did_ know, or that he based his decision on such prior knowledge. To apply the law we do not need to read minds and determine what the player actually knew, or what he was actually thinking. We need to ask whether he could have known. Some knowledge of the player's ability and tendencies are relevant. BTW: does 'likely' is L72B1 mean the same thing as 'likely' in L12C2? Some people seem to be using a much higher standard here. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 06:38:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:38:34 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f126.hotmail.com [207.82.251.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00914 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 06:38:17 +1000 Received: (qmail 953 invoked by uid 0); 21 Sep 1998 20:40:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19980921204038.952.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 199.166.210.220 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:40:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [199.166.210.220] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:40:36 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Eric wrote: > >>I think perhaps David has indirectly undermined his own case here. >>If we are to ignore intent, if we are to eschew mind-reading >entirely, how >>can it then make any difference whatsoever who the South player was, >or how >>well anyone knows him? > >It does not make any difference at all to me; my case is that "could >have known" means what it says, and not "did know". We are indeed to >ignore intent and eschew mind-reading, for that is what the Laws >require. But Grattan and others have argued, somewhat weirdly, that >the player could not have known because he did not know. I introduced >an analysis of South's character and experience in order to provide >some information to people who believe that what this South could have >known depends on who this South was - it was not, and is not, any part >of my case at all. > I've been avoiding this one, because the discussion is doing more to reset my position on it than I would have thought, and because others are making my points for me. I think, however, that while there are some that would disagree with your correcting the score (and I was one, though I may have changed my mind now - depends on what side of the bed I wake up on), no-one would argue that it is an implausible decision (i.e. no-one would make the comments they have been making about certain other recent appeals decisions). I think that most of the disagreement comes from David's insistence that the player be punished "severely" for his unethical behaviour. (I remember the word severely - if that wasn't what you said in your article, I'm sorry.) I also disagree. I disagree with severe penalties (I'm assuming PP's or DP's here) unless either the case is blatantly obvious, or lesser penalties have been applied in the past and have failed to educate the person being penalized. I feel that, in this case, unless there is a history with this particular South, neither of those two positions have been realized. I also disagree with David's reasoning toward the ultimate labelling of "stongly unethical". The argument, as I understand it, is that once I make a mistake, I must not do anything that an actively unethical person would have made the mistake to do. Therefore, once I make a mistake, I must think as an actively unethical player to determine my options. This is different from LA's, where I have to think "what are my plausible choices", and "what has be demonstrably suggested by the UI", both things that any ethical bridge player can do. I do not believe that we should require ethical players to think unethically in order to avoid "severe" penalties. In the particular case, if I decided that the play was unethical enough to be penalized, I would give him a "severe" warning, and show how the play could be seen as unethical. The second time, however, I'd have him grilled by a committee (L&E, or screeners for such). ObDisclaimer - I am nowhere near as experienced a director as most of the people in this discussion, and nowhere near as experienced a player as the rest. However, I have played with, against, and under such people, and have directed in clubs where players of Junior International calibre have played (and have done things significantly more unethical than what this South did. Unfortunately, there are some players here (not all, by any means) who believe that proper ethics are only required in "real" games - say, any game in which their opponents are knowledgable enough to complain). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 07:25:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:25:36 +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 HAA01016 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:25:29 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24118 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:23:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809212123.QAA24118@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Equitable redress of Misinformation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:23:33 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > If it really is the case that 100% of the player's peers would > find the right bid without the MI, then we cannot help but judge that the > MI directly caused the iregularity, and we cannot help but adjust for it. Correction: I meant "directly caused the bad result". [Someone was talking to me while I was typing.] Sorry. > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 07:30:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:30:36 +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 HAA01036 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:30:30 +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 OAA16516; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809212133.OAA16516@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Wildavsky" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:27:50 -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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: Eric Landau wrote: > > >AFAIK (and I'd probably know) there's no official regulation. The ACBL's > >position on psyches was presented to its membership in an article in the > >ACBL Bulletin about 20 years ago. Most of that article is repeated > >verbatim in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge ("Psychic Bidding"). > > > >The article sets out a clear blueprint for ruling against anyone who psychs > >in any circumstances: "People who employ psychic calls against less > >experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and thereby > >be in violation of League regulations. People who psych against their > >peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching, or of having an unannounced > >partnership understanding. People who psych against more experienced > >players... may lose the few good boards they get by being judged to have > >indulged in unsportsmanlike psyching, or to have disrupted the game." > > > >It then goes on to expound at length on how psychers can be found to be in > >violation of L40B. At one point it says, "Where psychic bids are > >concerned, however, the nature of the bid or call is such that the need to > >disclose implicit understandings has the effect of practically preventing > >their use." > > > >It's a long article, and gives much insight into the ACBL's view of psychs. > The ACBL's policy on psychs is currently best stated in the handbook called *Duplicate Decisions*, which I assume is official. It is included in a discussion of L40, Partnership Understandings. The position is not so extreme as Oakie's, only saying that frequent, random psychs can result in disciplinary action. If a pair psychs three or more times in a single session, and this is brought to the attention of the TD, he "should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 09:24:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:24:45 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA01222 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:24:37 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24f7.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.247]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA02673 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:27:44 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde5b7$ffe4c300$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 But 7B2 says No player shall touch any cards other than his own During or After the play. 7C says he cannot even remove his own cards after they have been returned to the board unless one of the opps or the TD is present. When it comes to their cards he can during or after the play Look but he may not Touch. In order to see one of the opps hands he must either ask, or call the TD, because he cannot get them out of the board without touching them. He can only see what he is shown. The usual way of doing things as far as I have observed, is to ask "Can I see your hand" while reaching acoss the board to remove it. IMO this is not allowed before, during or after play. I think if this was taken to the extreme, it is wrong to remove any cards from the board after play even when the boards have been stacked without the presence of an opp or a TD until the "weigh in" [Correction period has expired]. Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Law 7 > > >I am putting this back onto blml, after having a private correspondence >with Marv regarding looking at the hands after the cards have been >returned to the slots. Marv had raised the point regarding "does he need >permission of the TD to do so provided a member of each side is >present", and I had opined that he did. Marv then pointed out > >Marv: >> >>Notice the titles of 7B and 7C, which clearly show that each covers >>a different phase, 7B during the play, and 7C after cards are >>returned to the board. I feel that the language of 7B has nothing >>to do with what happens after the cards are returned to the board, >>when 7C takes over. Looking at L7C, it only requires the presence >>of an opponent or the TD, nothing about permission from either one. >> > >MadDog: > >I'd not considered this aspect before. 7B *does* contain the phrase >"during or *after* play" and I have always construed that as "after the >cards have been returned" as well. On reflection I am inclined to agree >with your interpretation however. > >We all know why the law exists - to prevent mis-boarding. We all know >about the pest who pulls cards out of the board after play and then puts >the curtain card (we use a slip of card with the hand record in the UK >in each slot) back in the wrong slot. I fine for that *always*. > >Question: > >Should we construe "after play you may look provided members of both >side are present" or should we construe "the TD's permission is >required"? I appreciate that in most cases a polite request to the oppo >is sufficient, and that TDs take no action in this case. > >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 Tue Sep 22 10:11:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:11:55 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01383 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:11:48 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24c9.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.201]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA05750 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:14:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:19:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde5be$9896ab80$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 But Marv... We know when declarers card is played.There is no doubt that it was played. We know that this revoke was not established. I am concerned with Dummy's rights. Law 61 and Law 42 both say dummy may ask declarer whether or not he has revoked.We know that he can. However what I am interested to hear opinions about is..when is it too late for dummy to ask.Is there a point in time that Law 61B kicks in. Can dummy illegally draw attention to declarers revoke? Your Zonal regs may be different but in the UK it is illegal for defender to ask one another. Mark Abraham said To: BLML Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 8:57 AM Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer > >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> Declarer (North) has just failed to follow suit to a Diamond led >from >> dummy, overruffing the small trump played by West. The trick is >quitted. >> Before a card is played to the next trick Dummy asks- "having no >> Diamonds?" >> Of course Declarer said yes, and you are called. >> Law 61B says Dummy may ask (Law 43 does not apply) >> Law 42 says Dummy may ask. >> Law 43Ab says, subject to exceptions in Law 42 Dummy may not call >> attention to an irregularity during the play. >> >> Question. >> >> After the trick has been quit, is it too late for dummy to ask?. >Are we >> now, during the play.? How do you rule? >> >> If it is not too late for Dummy to ask, when does it become too >late? I >> assume that if a card has been played by declarer to the next >trick the >> revoke is established.(Law 63). >> >I believe this was a matter of discussion some time back on BLML. >As I remember, the answer was that until declarer has let go of his >card it is not played and the irregularity has not yet occurred. >Dummy can therefore ask the question in order to prevent an >irregularity. After the card is played, it's too late for dummy to >say anything, as that would be calling attention to an >irregularity. Of course declarer can correct a mistake on his own >before playing to the next trick, but not with any help from dummy. > >Contrary to popular belief, L45C2's requirement that declarer must >play a card that is held face up at or near the table, even >touching it, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that >it has been played, does not mean that the card *is* played by such >action. It's not played until he lets go of it. Yes, he must play >it, I suppose, but he can retract it to correct an illegal play >(L47B). > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 11:37:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:37:50 +1000 Received: from smtp1.mailsrvcs.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01572 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:37:44 +1000 Received: from mike (1Cust43.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.43]) by smtp1.mailsrvcs.net with ESMTP id UAA18069 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:40:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001f01bde5c9$ae6b59a0$2b69ffd0@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:37:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Herman wrote: >My personal opinion is that if any pair is absent for any reason for mor >than a complete round, then all the consecutive boards, unplayed by this >pair, are scored as not played, as if there were a bye. >This includes the third board of the set in which they left, and also >the missing one(s) in the set they started playing after their return >(arrival) if there is insufficient time to play all boards. >>-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > I like this approach a lot but can't justify it by the FLB. Please help. Mike Dodson From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 12:21:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:21:10 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA01644 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:21:02 +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 TAA25584 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220223.TAA25584@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:20:29 -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 Reg Busch wrote: > > WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress > for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment > in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently > irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action > commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. > > Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the > *only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an > irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play > or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for > example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? Yes. > That, if the NOs were heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of a revoke, they will still get redress? No. A revoke, lead out of turn, ducking a setting-trick ace vs a slam, etc., is not rational. >Does this mean that the Kaplan doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? > It means that the Kaplan Principle has been affirmed. What the WBF LC has not made clear is that when the NOS is damaged as a *consequence* of the infraction, then *subsequent* irrational, wild, or gambling actions on its part do not annull the right to redress. What often goes unnoticed here is that double shot attempts are not always identifiable as such. If I take an unlikely, but not wildly unreasonable, 6S save against a 6H contract reached after a hesitation, feeling fairly sure that if the save does not produce a good score I will get redress, then it is possible I will get redress in spite of my 6S when it doesn't work out. If 6S happens to be a fine score, I'll get to keep it. I think this is okay, just taking advantage of an opposing irregularity in a reasonable fashion. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 13:20:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:20:50 +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 NAA01738 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:20:42 +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 UAA03860; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220323.UAA03860@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:20:23 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > mlfrench wrote: > > >L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the > >board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During > >that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own > >except by permission of the Director. > > > >L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time > >subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the > >board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > > > >Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, > >can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the > >hands? > > > >While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs > >hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see > >that this accords with L7C. > > > >Opinions would be appreciated. > > What's customary around here (and seems reasonable and sensible) is: > > (a) A player who wishes to see another player's hand may do so if that > player gives him permission. Not required by L7C, and not reasonable and sensible. Why should an opponent's permission be required? What possible need is there for that? The hand is over, and all the opponent needs to do is watch that I don't do something illegal. That's why an opponent's presence is required. Why should she (sorry ladies, it's always a she) be allowed to refuse permission? On what possible basis? What purpose would it serve? BTW, I have been refused permission to look at an absent partner's hand, and the right to refuse was upheld by an Associate National Director. > (b) Until the round ends, if permission is not granted, the player may call > the TD, who will allow inspection of the hand only if the player's reason > for wanting to see it is appropriate (for example, if he believes there may > have been an infraction and wishes to verify it; not, say, because he wants > to estimate how well he did on the hand). That may be reasonable and sensible, but it is not what L7C says. It is also a waste of TD's time. What's wrong with wanting to estimate how well I did on a deal? Is that illegal? If the TD's presence and okay is necessary, why is that? Is he going to make sure I don't foul the board? Can't an opponent do that? > > (c) After the round ends, any hand may be inspected freely without > permission (subject to the obvious contraints, e.g. that doing so does not > "delay or obstruct the game"). That is objectionable, IMO. Looking at a hand after the round is called automatically delays the game. > > That's clearly *not* what the law says, but Marv asked about what is > customary. Around here, anyone who objected to customary practice based on > the letter of the law would probably be upheld by a TD (who would issue a > pro forma warning to the violator), but would also earn himself a > reputation as an incorrigible bridge lawyer. > No TD that I know would ever uphold my right. As you may guess, this assertion comes from experience. I didn't ask about what is customary, I related what is customary. What seems to be customary is that TDs create laws that don't exist in order to make their job easier. They don't want people looking at hands, for obvious reasons. However, L7C doesn't say I need the permission of either the TD or an opponent, merely the presence of one. An SO or TD can, and should, regulate this right, saying "only one hand at a time," "no loud discussion about the hand," "a hand must be returned to the pocket when the round is called," "if someone else wants to look at a hand, you must return the hand to the pocket with minimum delay," "fouling a board will result in serious penalties," and so forth. That's fine. But don't tell me I have to ask anyone's permission. I do so for politeness, and to make sure an opponent knows what I'm doing, not because it is required, and I don't expect an impolite refusal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 13:26:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:26:22 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01756 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:26:17 +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 UAA04565; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220328.UAA04565@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:26:18 -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 David Martin wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > > L7B covers the period of time between the removal of hands from the > > board until it is time to return the hands to the board. During > > that time, "No player shall touch any cards other than his own > > except by permission of the Director. > > > > L7C covers the restoration of cards to the board and time > > subsequent to that. "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the > > board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." > > > > Question to BLML: After the hands have been restored to the board, > > can an opponent refuse to permit a player to inspect one of the > > hands? > > > > While it is customary to ask permission of an opponent, and TDs > > hereabouts are treating such permission as mandatory, I don't see > > that this accords with L7C. > > > > Opinions would be appreciated. > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to see > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > ########## The applicability of L66D is clearly within the time period covered by L7B, not that of L7C, as I read it. For one thing, the title of L66 is INSPECTION OF TRICKS, which can hardly be done after the hands are returned to the board. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 14:59:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:59:50 +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 OAA01898 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:59:43 +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 WAA17346; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809220502.WAA17346@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:59:08 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote; > > But Marv... We know when declarers card is played.There is no doubt that > it was played. We know that this revoke was not established. I am > concerned with Dummy's rights. Law 61 and Law 42 both say dummy may ask > declarer whether or not he has revoked.We know that he can. But is it clear he/she cannot ask after declarer has let go of the card? Players do it all the time, but I don't think it's legal. However, as far as I can tell, a violation is only subject to a procedural penalty (PP), per L43B1/L90. > However what > I am interested to hear opinions about is..when is it too late for dummy > to ask. When declarer lets go of the card he is playing, then it's too late, as I understand it. It's played, and if it's a revoke then it's an irregularity that dummy cannot call attention to. However, as I said, the only penalty is a possible PP, so I guess declarer can correct a revoke even after dummy's violation of correct procedure. Doesn't say he can't. So, the answer is, it becomes too late for dummy to ask after a revoke has been established. But if he asks after declarer let's go of the card, he risks a PP. > Is there a point in time that Law 61B kicks in. Can dummy > illegally draw attention to declarers revoke? L61B: Dummy may ask declarer [about a possible revoke], (but see Law 43B2(b)). L43B: Except as specified in L42... L43B2(b) only prevents dummy from asking about a revoke if he has lost rights per L43A2, and says a revoke is established if he/she does so. So that penalty is severe, not just a PP. The question is illegal. If dummy asks about a revoke after the card is actually played, that would immediately constitute an established revoke. I presume this would apply even if declarer has not let go of the card, but L43B2(b) says "a play from declarer's hand," so I'm not sure about that. Common sense says yes. > Your Zonal regs may be > different but in the UK it is illegal for defender to ask one another. > Okay in ACBL-land. The prohibition is rather stuffy, IMO, but *chacun a son gout*. Mark Abraham said > card > declarer > <_not_yet_shown_ to be an irregularity, dummy may query. The only > outcome > I mildly disagree with Mark. If the dummy questions a played card that does not constitute a revoke, then fine, no harm done. But if he questions a played card that constitutes a revoke, then he has called attention to an irregularity, which is not allowd. No big deal, just a possible PP. Apologies to Anne and Mark if I have misinterpreted something, and to all if I am wrong about something. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 16:17:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:17:37 +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 QAA01996 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:17:33 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn3p40.ozemail.com.au [203.108.217.232]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17443 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:20:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:20:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809220620.QAA17443@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: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think it is about time the question was put, I'm still voting with David Burn and think that L73E is about right, although the "could have known" stick avoids implications of unethical behaviour. I presume the panel would be unanimous if young Richard had in fact bid 1H out of turn, and then repeated his 1H bid in turn? >Let me put it this way. If South after the event had said: "Of course >I wanted to psyche in the heart suit, but I thought I had better shut >partner up first", how would you have ruled? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 16:50:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:50:01 +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 QAA02033 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:49:48 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id IAA09632; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:52:12 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36074909.9AC64A8F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:51:53 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn> <3.0.1.32.19980921155938.006deec4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning all LADIES and gentlemen (have no smaller letters...) As Eric wrote bellow , we can go on and argue until we'll turn blue.. I think we already expressed our "manifold' opinions .. As I already published it , the fabulous results of the poll : 100% = psyche. In spite of this poll's results I still believe it was UI , because that information couldn't be supplied to his partner , if the BOOR wouldn't occur... Grattan told us something about the ways an UI can arise , not consequent to an irregularity .. What does really concern me now is the definition of UI... I'll open a new thread , which I believe will be an endless source for Ph.D. titles and suggest to let this one in a peaceful rest.. Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > At 08:01 PM 9/21/98 +0100, John wrote: > > >In article <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn>, David Burn > > writes > >> Think of a > >>golfer who buys a miniature putter for his two-year old son. If that > >>club is the fifteenth in his bag when he plays the final round of the > >>Open, he will be disqualified even though he could not physically have > >>used the club and had no possibility of deriving any benefit from its > >>presence. > > > >I'd argue it wasn't a golf club at all, since it is unfit for purpose. > > I wouldn't argue the disqualification, not if the rules said that I may not > carry a fifteenth club under any circumstances. > > But if the rules said that I may not carry a fifteenth club if, at the time > I put it in my bag, I could have known that I was likely to gain an > advantage by doing so, I would argue until I turned blue. > > 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 Sep 22 18:01:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:01:42 +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 SAA02153 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:01:34 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA02790; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:02:49 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:02:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir Chapter one of the FBL doesn't include the definition of UI (not a shame - many other definitions aren't there......) In stead , a whole Law - L16 - tries to do it , including some ruling indications ...... In a previous thread , I defined it as :" An information which arrived at a player's mind , after an irregularity occurred ". Occurred - I meant occurred everywhere in the tournament territory..... (the toilette in the tournament's building included , so even Mackwell can't escape my definition......!!...) IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!! Law 16 explains that one is authorized to base his actions on .... "calls , play and ..mannerisms of opponents ....." . Other possible "extraneous" sources of information wouldn't be a proper way and may be an infraction of low .... You pointed that UI can arise after a legal investigation of system , bid , play etc.... ; I still believe that even then , no UI will appear if the procedures , both from asking side and the responding side will be done in the proper way described by the Laws ; => see the footnote to Law 20F1..... As another very well defined example , if the player says ...." I think it is.. " it is infringement of Law 75C... I would like to have it clear that UI arises if and only if there was an infringement of a Law or a procedure....i.e "crime" the most important for me is to define that no UI if there wasn't the "CRIME". And more - IMHO there is a problem with L75A - i like to believe that lawmakers' intention was not "to kill" a player after he made the "crime" but don't believe they thought he is entitled to make full profit of his 'crime" ..... To avoid this , they used not only the usual belt , but : shleikes - L72B1 hernia belt - L16C2 safety belt - L12A and L12B life belt - L12C Waiting for answers , remarks and .... other belts.... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 18:04:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:04:24 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA02169 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:04:17 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-41.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.41]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA09408; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 04:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <360759CB.CFE6E8C9@idt.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:03:23 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On thge other hand, it was Winston Churchill who described golf as a game invented by the devil, "played with implements ill-suited to the purpose." Irv John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <003801bde587$5983d6c0$ec2b63c3@david-burn>, David Burn > writes > > Think of a > >golfer who buys a miniature putter for his two-year old son. If that > >club is the fifteenth in his bag when he plays the final round of the > >Open, he will be disqualified even though he could not physically have > >used the club and had no possibility of deriving any benefit from its > >presence. > > > > I'd argue it wasn't a golf club at all, since it is unfit for purpose. > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 18:22:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:22:20 +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 SAA02199 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:22:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA08111; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:24:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36075EC9.846D577E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:24:41 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Martin CC: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Law 7 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear David If should turn the page , would see that you allowed to handle your cards only !!!!! Maddog's answer is true too , but the Law is in 66D itself... Dany David Martin wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to see > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 18:33:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:33:10 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA02217 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:32:35 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA10624; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:35:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36076124.4E34752F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:34:44 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List , Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 7 References: <199809220323.UAA03860@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 First I vote for Anne's approach for club duplicate , which fits with my Law 0 and doesn't infringe the laws rudely....... The TDs have very bitter experience with this issue. Practically - it's impossible to enforce your proposal. I can tell you from my own experience , even at international tournaments , what can happen... Everything you can imagine is less than real life supplies... Directing official tournaments , I don't allow it , but don't run around the tables to catch criminals ..... Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > I didn't ask about what is customary, I related what is customary. > What seems to be customary is that TDs create laws that don't exist > in order to make their job easier. They don't want people looking > at hands, for obvious reasons. However, L7C doesn't say I need the > permission of either the TD or an opponent, merely the presence of > one. An SO or TD can, and should, regulate this right, saying "only > one hand at a time," "no loud discussion about the hand," "a hand > must be returned to the pocket when the round is called," "if > someone else wants to look at a hand, you must return the hand to > the pocket with minimum delay," "fouling a board will result in > serious penalties," and so forth. That's fine. But don't tell me I > have to ask anyone's permission. I do so for politeness, and to > make sure an opponent knows what I'm doing, not because it is > required, and I don't expect an impolite refusal. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 18:40:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:40:27 +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 SAA02237 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:38:59 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA12205; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:41:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360762A9.88A4D2F5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:41:13 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Musgrove CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <199809220620.QAA17443@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Tony - I agree it is the closest law's paragraph , but IMO not respectable idea, because it suggests concealed understanding . I wrote zillions times - I don't believe there was intentionally "monkey business" in Richard's bid... See my next message - I suggest to focus on another Ph. D. thesis dany Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I think it is about time the question was put, I'm still voting with David > Burn and think that L73E is about right, although the "could have known" > stick avoids implications of unethical behaviour. I presume the panel > would be unanimous if young Richard had in fact bid 1H out of turn, and then > repeated his 1H bid in turn? > > >Let me put it this way. If South after the event had said: "Of course > >I wanted to psyche in the heart suit, but I thought I had better shut > >partner up first", how would you have ruled? > > Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 19:41:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:41:06 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA02350 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:40:59 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-98.uunet.be [194.7.9.98]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03613 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:44:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36069201.BBDE5737@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:50:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In trying to derive the formulae I have been promising, I have come to realise that the most simple problem is this one, and I would like to hear your opinions on it. A player has misinformation, and does something completely normal given that information. As often happens, the result of the actions is an absolute zero (say -2000 or something). The TD and AC have no problem whatsoever in applying L12. Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point just before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" outcomes. Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but with B obviously better than the table result. In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I call the chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct information). The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in between (something like 30% or 70%). The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. I now state that a score of C = cxA + (1-c)xB is a more equitable result. Do you agree ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:03:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02394 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:27 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLPL5-0004GN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:06:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:26:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Exposed quitted trick. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980918093958.00934ce0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >This one may be too easy. I don't think it is easy! >Defender W, having won the current trick, properly (66A -- see below) >requires that all cards just played to the trick be faced. In complying, >his partner inadvertently faces both the card he played to the current >trick, and the one played to the previous trick. > >Of course this makes it clear what (if any) signal was being passed. Is >this simply a UI situation? In evaluating LA are we to assume that absent >the extra information Mr W would/would not have remembered his partner's >previous card. The problem is that while it is UI it is also AI for the partner to remember the card! It has been argued before on BLML that if you have AI and UI giving the same information that there is no problem with using the AI. I think this is normally the case. Consider the most stupid case. Suppose that W leads the HA at T1, which wins. At T2 he leads the S6, and the trick is played and quitted: then E realises he has not noticed the size of West's spade. The tricks are faced again, and the HA is accidentally faced: would we not allow E to choose among LAs one that depended on his knowing that the original lead was the HA? That just feels wrong. No, I do not think we worry about the UI aspect. Turning over two cards could benefit the player: it is an infraction: he could have known it would work to his benefit. We can adjust under L72B1, but as someone has pointed out we do not really use this Law unless we have some real doubts. If you have no suspicion of anything untoward I believe that a verbal warning not to repeat it should suffice under L90. >Is testimony from W to the effect of "Of course I remembered the previous >trick, that's why I needed to see this one!" to be considered self-serving? This is a strange question. The testimony *is* self-serving, so I suppose we treat it as self-serving! It is getting a bit like the business of saying things that are as a matter of fashion considered "politically incorrect". Lots of things said are "self-serving": that does not mean they are to be discounted. *Some* self-serving statements are to be discounted but not all - and by discounted I mean literally that, not ignored. If a player says, when asked what 2D meant, "It is on my card" that is a self-serving statement but we take it at full value. We look at the card! If a player says, "But I was always going to bid 3S" that is a self- serving statement and we attach little weight to it. When a TD or AC asks a player a question he should attach somewhat less weight to unprovable answers that support the players position. How much is "somewhat"? That is a matter of judgement for the TD/AC. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:03:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:43 +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 ESMTP id UAA02395 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLPL5-0004GP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:06:32 +0000 Message-ID: <9ZOuXMAhB3B2Ew+H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:39:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick question (+long story) In-Reply-To: <360100E6.A06F3D6A@ehv.sc.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >> Quick question (which I couldn't find in the RTFLB yesterday with 6 angry >> players around me): suppose a player discovers that the explanation and >> the actual hand are inconsistent and he suspects misinformation, until >> what time can he call the TD and ask for a ruling? > Law 92B: "The right to request [...] a Director's ruling expires 30 >minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, >unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period." > > As far as I know, the Dutch Bridge league has not specified a different >time period, so the 30 minutes applies. > > Whether a score adjustment is to be considered is an other matter. >Perhaps you could refer to L11A or L79A. When a player asks for a ruling that is delayed then one of two things applies. Either Someone at the table was in breach of L9B1A and did not call the TD when required. The TD should be fairly dubious at accepting evidence supporting the ruling unless it is very clear: in other words the balance of proof has shifted. Or The ruling is being asked for later because some more information has come to light. Typically this is information from the hand records at the end of the session. In this case the TD will get as much information as is available at this late stage and rule as best he can. However, if the information is just not available he may not be able to do anything about it. No ruling should be given where one side has not been granted any chance to put its case. Where a late ruling is sought and one pair has left the building then no ruling should be given. This may be unfortunate but will happen occasionally. In Henk's case, with the players from one side having left the building, th reason for the late request is reasonable: there is no breach of L9B1A: however, unfortunately, one side is no longer available: result stands. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:03:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02396 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLPL5-0004GM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:06:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:05:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. In-Reply-To: <01bde2f3$46b8fa20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan EndicottSecretary, WBF Laws Committee. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Grabiner >Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. > > >>Grattan Endicott writes: >> >>> WBF Meetings in Lille : other odds and ends >>> from the minutes. ["Sundries".] >> >>> "No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law >>> that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law >>> 64 means the two trick penalty." >> >>What is the basis for this interpretation? >>-- >++++ A Committee decision. My personal feeling is that the >Committee seems not inclined to mitigate the pain of the >law when the player has defied the requirement of this part >of it. Specious "reasons" could be spun, but discussion in >committee has not been so extended as to leave me with >notes of arguments. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Have I understood correctly? L432B says: "...the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." L64 gives some situations where two tricks are transferred, some situations where one trick is transferred, and some situations where no trick is transferred. L43B2B is unambiguous: it does not say that there is a two-trick penalty but that you follow the dictates of L64 to assess the penalty. Does the decision of the WBFLC merely reinforce this since presumably someone found it ambiguous [although I cannot see how]? Or does it mean that we are required not to follow the wording of L43B2B at all? If the latter why not change the Law? I do not believe that many TDs are going to consider/remember/take much notice of an interpretation that disagrees with the wording of the Law. I feel sure that I am missing something here. -- Puzzled of Liverpool From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:03:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02398 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLPL9-0004Gx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:06:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:48:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defenders revoke then declarer concedes In-Reply-To: <199809181927.PAA13361@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >This came close to happening at the club last night. > >West has revoked by discarding on a club trick, and it has become >established. Declarer, unaware of the revoke, concedes some tricks >which he would have had to lose anyway, and it is possible that West >either will or will not win a trick with a club. > >Is the revoke penalty one trick or two? The TD judges which tricks are lost where, giving the benefit of any doubt to the NOs. This will normally mean the answer is two [assuming West is a defender]. The AC, of course, uses L12C3 [*coff*] and gives them some of each! Actually this is like the clever questions in old puzzle books: when you finally read the answer they tell you, triumphantly, that West was the Declarer!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:03:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:44 +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 ESMTP id UAA02397 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:03:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLPL9-0004Gw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:06:36 +0000 Message-ID: <0ZasXVAxO3B2EwfU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:53:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A In-Reply-To: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!! That's horrible! If partner does something, and I can guess something about his hand from it, then it is UI. I bend over backwards not to use the information as required by L73C, and there has been no crime. Good. In the vast majority of UI cases there is no crime and no TD call. >I would like to have it clear that UI arises if and only if >there was an infringement of a Law or a procedure....i.e "crime" >the most important for me is to define that no UI if there wasn't >the "CRIME". Definitely wrong. Example. Partner picks up his hand and looks *very* happy. I have a borderline pre-empt. I have UI: passing is suggested so naturally I pre-empt. No crime: I have followed the Laws and the ethics of the game - but there was UI! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 20:18:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:18:43 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02486 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:18:36 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-217.uunet.be [194.7.13.217]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07546 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:21:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36077557.1BFD8A78@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:00:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <001f01bde5c9$ae6b59a0$2b69ffd0@mike> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: > > >Herman wrote: > >My personal opinion is that if any pair is absent for any reason for mor > >than a complete round, then all the consecutive boards, unplayed by this > >pair, are scored as not played, as if there were a bye. > >This includes the third board of the set in which they left, and also > >the missing one(s) in the set they started playing after their return > >(arrival) if there is insufficient time to play all boards. > >>-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > I like this approach a lot but can't justify it by the FLB. Please help. > > Mike Dodson Indeed a problem. L12C1 is often cited, which is often paraphrased as : "when a pair cannot play a board, they should get A+". But read L12C1 again : "when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, ..." This is not the same thing I don't think the Laws tell us to give A+ in these cases. In which case, the problem has to be dealt with by the regulations in force. I have never written them down as regulations, but I have written them as recommendations, among others on my web pages. In all the tournaments where I have influence, I use these recommendations as "regulation". If that answer does not suffice, then I ask another question : where in the Laws or Regulations does it say how to deal with a bye ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 21:38:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:38:30 +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 VAA02598 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:38:23 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h138.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id PAA08619; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:41:16 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3608279D.CDB@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:41:34 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Musgrove CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please References: <199809220620.QAA17443@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Tony Musgrove wrote: "I think it is about time the question was put, I'm still voting with David Burn and think that L73E is about right, although the "could have known" stick avoids implications of unethical behaviour. I presume the panel would be unanimous if young Richard had in fact bid 1H out of turn, and then repeated his 1H bid in turn?" For my opinion - Lawmakers' intention and my understanding are that incidentally and inadvertent breaches of bridge ethics are caused (as a rule) by an ordinary human features. Player, made such an infraction, IS NOT UNETHICAL player/man/woman. That's why there are no disciplinary doing/hearing, no punishments. Redress only - and redress is not punishment. E.Kaplan underlined it a lot of times. Unethical doing consists on CONSCIOUS breach only. But redress is to be done in every "could be known" case because of bridge should be protected as a game. Why do we use screens, bidding-boxes etc.? Because we suspect players to be unethical and to generate UI? No - for better protecting the game from incidental generating UI. For the same reason there is L75B1 - and there is no guilty, no shame when TD/AC uses this law for protecting NOS. Nor more than in case of revoke. There were too much words such a "punishment", "unethical" etc. For my opinion all these words are irrelevant for the matter of our discussion and may only hurt somebody. I'd like to repeat my position once more: no accusation, no punishment - just redress and warning (for not repeating in future such doing that is very similar to Alcatraz coup). Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 22:13:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:13:04 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02789 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:12:56 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-142.access.net.il [192.116.204.142]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA05162; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:15:55 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360794E8.5EC3D94@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:15:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of Misinformation References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi your Highness As a disciple* of Euler , Lobachewsky , Cauchy ,Hilbert etc....and of Planck , Heisenberg , Pauli , Landau , Feynman , etc.... and also of Mandelbrot , Lorentz (the Meteorolog . ) , etc.... I don't wonder you have no clear-cut agreement about equity. There must be mathematical accuracy , I agree with quantum theory but with chaos too. I am sure there are at least 7-8 patterns of MI which can be associated with the 3 classes of MI you should apply one of your percentage , bellow. I suggest that this list will work all these together : 1. you'll make the accurate calculations for each of the cases 2. meanwhile all of us will try to classify the different kinds of MI and relating them to the 3 cases you wrote bellow. 3. some of us will try to find the frequencies for the chaotic patterns for each class Let's go to work Dany *P.S. I apologize to the Lord of scientific history that i couldn't include more great persons I appreciate and learnt their theories..... Herman De Wael wrote: > > Joint message from Herman De Wael and Steve Willner : > > Subject: Equity in MI Cases > > Herman and Steve have derived algebraic formulas that represent equity > in MI cases, given differing ideas on what constitutes equity. > Unfortunately, we cannot entirely agree on what equity is. A couple of > sample cases will illustrate the difference. > > Consider a case where there are two options for the NOS: A wins, and B > loses. With correct information, virtually 100% of comparable players > will choose A, but with MI, some players will go wrong and choose B. > Of course the pairs who choose B want an adjustment. What result do > you assign in each of the following cases, and most important, why? > Give a separate answer for the OS and NOS if necessary. Answers can be > score A, score B, or "mixed score between A and B." (Herman and Steve > can work out the percentages for the mixed score if we agree on the > principles involved.) > > Case 1: given the MI, 80% of players will still manage to find A. > Case 2: with the MI, about 50% will find A and 50% will pick B. > Case 3: with the MI, only 20% will find A; 80% will go with B. > > Replies by email to Herman (who will forward copies to Steve) or post > to the mailing list. Thanks. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 22:53:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:53:41 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02964 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:53:37 +1000 Received: from lawlab09 (lawlab09.comlaw.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.14]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA15731 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:56:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:56:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980922225701.11af76de@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced - a poll please Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >As I already published it , the fabulous results of the poll : >100% = psyche. In spite of this poll's results I still believe >it was UI , because that information couldn't be supplied >to his partner , if the BOOR wouldn't occur... >Grattan told us something about the ways an UI can arise , not >consequent to an irregularity .. >What does really concern me now is the definition of UI... >I'll open a new thread , which I believe will be an endless source >for Ph.D. titles and suggest to let this one in a peaceful rest.. > >Dany Then by your argument that "this 1H psyche is UI" (presumably UI to his barred partner), even though the laws provide that the offender may call after opening BOOR and barring partner, all of the information derived from those bids is UI. Doesn't sound much like a bridge game. In particular I note the preamble to Law 16 "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Since the 1H is a legal call... where is the UI? Certainly the knowledge that the bid was made in the expectation that partner could take no action is AI to the whole table. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 22 23:13:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:13:57 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03078 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:13:50 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id PAA09077 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:16:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J2413U8DHS002OS0@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:16:53 +0200 Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:16:47 +0200 Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:16:47 +0200 From: KOOYMAN Subject: Betreft: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. In-reply-to: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <6147161522091998/A47207/EXPERT/11C9B3D02E00*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C9B3D02E00 X400-MTS-identifier: [;6147161522091998/A47207/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >>>Grattan Endicott>>Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: David Grabiner >>>Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. >>> >>> >>>>Grattan Endicott writes: >>>> >>>>> WBF Meetings in Lille : other odds and ends >>>>> from the minutes. ["Sundries".] >>>> >>>>> "No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law >>>>> that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law >>>>> 64 means the two trick penalty." >>>> >>>>What is the basis for this interpretation? >>>>-- >>>++++ A Committee decision. My personal feeling is that the >>>Committee seems not inclined to mitigate the pain of the >>>law when the player has defied the requirement of this part >>>of it. Specious "reasons" could be spun, but discussion in >>>committee has not been so extended as to leave me with >>>notes of arguments. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> >> Have I understood correctly? L432B says: >> >>"...the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been >>established." >> >> L64 gives some situations where two tricks are transferred, some >>situations where one trick is transferred, and some situations where no >>trick is transferred. L43B2B is unambiguous: it does not say that there >>is a two-trick penalty but that you follow the dictates of L64 to assess >>the penalty. >> >> Does the decision of the WBFLC merely reinforce this since presumably >>someone found it ambiguous [although I cannot see how]? >> >> Or does it mean that we are required not to follow the wording of >>L43B2B at all? If the latter why not change the Law? I do not believe >>that many TDs are going to consider/remember/take much notice of an >>interpretation that disagrees with the wording of the Law. >> >> I feel sure that I am missing something here. >> >>-- >>Puzzled of Liverpool I tried to explain this for BLML some weeks ago. The normal revoke penalty for the second trick is given when either revoker won the revoking trick or later did win a trick with a card he could have played in the trick he revoked. This is based on the fact that revoker did not follow suit (but revoked). In law 43 (and also 62 since last year) revoker does follow suit after illegal attention is drawn to the revoke. But the penalty is treated as that belonging to an established revoke. Thus: following suit (and not winning the trick) you still get a penalty trick when you win a trick with a card you could have played in the revoking trick. Some people don't like that and I have some sympathy with them. But if we restrict this penalty to one trick this means a bonus to the player illegally asking his partner about a revoke. Not asking might lead to a two trick penalty (the normal penalty after an established revoke). Since the laws should not encourage infractions, we had no way of following this suggestion. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 00:16:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:16:03 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05572 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:15:57 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.191]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980922141837.JOHI27218@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:18:37 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:47:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde62f$82c45c00$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 MLFrench wrote: >The ACBL's policy on psychs is currently best stated in the >handbook called *Duplicate Decisions*, which I assume is official. >It is included in a discussion of L40, Partnership Understandings. >The position is not so extreme as Oakie's, only saying that >frequent, random psychs can result in disciplinary action. If a >pair psychs three or more times in a single session, and this is >brought to the attention of the TD, he "should investigate the >possibility that excessive psyching is taking place." Duplicate Decisions is written primarily for club directors. It does not state any 'official' policy that I am aware of. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 00:36:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:36:28 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05724 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:36:21 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcish.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.145]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA28399 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980922103753.00731378@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:37:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) In-Reply-To: <36069201.BBDE5737@village.uunet.be> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:50 PM 9/21/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point just >before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" outcomes. >Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but >with B obviously better than the table result. > This setup ignores the table result (I'll call it "Z"). Since it did in fact occur, its a priori probablity cannot have been 0. >In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I call the >chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct information). > >The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. > >Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the >particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will >then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in >between (something like 30% or 70%). > >The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. > >I now state that a score of > >C = cxA + (1-c)xB > >is a more equitable result. > How are A, B, and C being meaured? Total points, or in MP, IMP's or boards, depending on the nature of the event? Because of the high degree of non-linearity in converting the table score into any of the usual scoring forms, this could significantly compromise the so-called equity. For example, say the game is MP, and result A (with c=.7) corresponds to the score of 650, while B is a table score of 620. Suppose further that at the 12 other tables in the event, there were 9 scores of 650 and 3 with scores of 620. Then your calculated result of .7*650 + .3*620 = 627 yields 3 MP. IMO, this is much less equitable than the 12C2 adjustment. Whether the 12C2 adjustment of 650 = 7.5 MP is more or less eqtuitable than .7*7.5 + .3*1.5 = 5.7 MP is subject to reasonable debate. Myself, I prefer the 12C2 version. The NOS were likely headed for a decent result on the board, and as a consequence of the MI, are limited to a below average result at best, using either of the weighted measures, and a really poor result if we select the table score weighted result. That does not seem to afford them much protection against the opponents' infraction. But all that is somewhat beside the point. Whether this is theoretically more equitable or not, it has some serious practical drawbacks. The first is that educating AC members in the correct application of this technique is simply not going to occur. While I believe that most (though not all) BLML readers have the mathematical sophistication to understand what you're doing, most potential AC members do not. It is not realistic to expect them to apply this sort of formula correctly and consistently. Even if that were possible! Which it's not, because it relies heavily on the precise estimate of multiple probabilities. Determination of these a priori probabilities is simply not an exact science, and dressing up the procedure with a scientific-looking formula can't change that basic truth. So the assessment that (say) the 5.7 MP adjustment is more "equitable" than the 12C2 adjustment of 7.5 MP depends completely on the confidence we have in the values of .7 and .3. For all practical purposes, these numbers are pulled from the ether. Is the weighted average result really going to be perceived as more equitable? Certainly not if in the example we give the NOS only 3 MP. But even if we give them the somewhat more reasonable 5.7 MP, we're going to have a hard time explaining to them where that number comes from, unless they remember a lot more of their college mathematics than most folks. This number will inevitably seem like it's pulled from thin air, which is basically true. Is it just me, or does everyone see the distinction between this and the earlier example posted by Herman on this thread? In that case, Herman appeared to be proposing a probabalistically weighted score based on what other pairs would have done _with_ the MI. Although he didn't actually say so, the subtext appeared to be that if the AC judges that the NOS could have (or posssibly would have, or certainly should have) gone right even with the MI, their compensation should be reduced according to their estimated malfeasance, in order to achieve equity. For a really good time, put these two problems together. That is, we have three possible outcomes, A, B and C, with A the most and C (the actual table result) the least favorable for tthe NOS. We also have the probabilities (or, more precisely, we will make up the probabilities) of each of these outcomes both with and without the MI. We will identify these as a, b, and c and a(mi), b(mi) and c(mi). (Sorry for the notation, but I feel lost without real subscripts). For 20 points, design an equitable formula for adjusting the score. For a 5 point bonus, guess within 2 the greatest number of BLML participants who produce the same non-12C2 formula. No slide rules! Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 00:58:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05781 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLTwr-0006G2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:01:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:13:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980921173314.007094d4@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress >for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment >in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently >irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action >commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. > >Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the >*only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an >irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play >or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for >example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were >heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of >a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan >doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? Not the way I read it. An egregious error is an irrational one, surely? It may be a shift in degree, of course, but then attitudes at world level are not the same as at ACBL level. Europe tends to use wild or gambling. NAmerica uses egregious error. I would think that wild, gambling or irrational comes between the two. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 00:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:44 +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 ESMTP id AAA05774 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:38 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLTwn-0006G3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:01:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3Ei8QPBQb6B2Ewvu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:32:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >I am putting this back onto blml, after having a private correspondence >with Marv regarding looking at the hands after the cards have been >returned to the slots. Marv had raised the point regarding "does he need >permission of the TD to do so provided a member of each side is >present", and I had opined that he did. Marv then pointed out > >Marv: >> >>Notice the titles of 7B and 7C, which clearly show that each covers >>a different phase, 7B during the play, and 7C after cards are >>returned to the board. I feel that the language of 7B has nothing >>to do with what happens after the cards are returned to the board, >>when 7C takes over. Looking at L7C, it only requires the presence >>of an opponent or the TD, nothing about permission from either one. >> > >MadDog: > >I'd not considered this aspect before. 7B *does* contain the phrase >"during or *after* play" and I have always construed that as "after the >cards have been returned" as well. On reflection I am inclined to agree >with your interpretation however. > >We all know why the law exists - to prevent mis-boarding. We all know >about the pest who pulls cards out of the board after play and then puts >the curtain card (we use a slip of card with the hand record in the UK >in each slot) back in the wrong slot. I fine for that *always*. > >Question: > >Should we construe "after play you may look provided members of both >side are present" or should we construe "the TD's permission is >required"? I appreciate that in most cases a polite request to the oppo >is sufficient, and that TDs take no action in this case. L7B is clear. "No player shall touch any cards other than his own (...) during or after play except by permission of the Director." After play means after play: it does not end when the round ends or some other time because it does not say so: it says "after play". The EBU Orange book says: 7.2.2 You may not take the cards, or the curtain cards, of other players out of the board during or after play without the permission of the TD. At the end of play, however, you may ask an opponent to show his hand to check on a revoke or to ascertain the number of tricks won or lost. (Law 7C, 66D) I think that attempts to stop people having a post-mortem by not letting them touch other people's cards are misguided. It is hardly the job of the TD to upset people and post-mortems are part of bridge. However, it is reasonable to stop them touching each other's cards, delaying the game unnecessarily and speaking in voices audible at other tables - post-mortems without these problems are acceptable. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 00:58:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05782 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:58:43 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLTws-0006Ge-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:01:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:08:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer In-Reply-To: <01bde4f9$223db160$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Declarer (North) has just failed to follow suit to a Diamond led from >dummy, overruffing the small trump played by West. The trick is quitted. >Before a card is played to the next trick Dummy asks- "having no >Diamonds?" >Of course Declarer said yes, and you are called. >Law 61B says Dummy may ask (Law 43 does not apply) >Law 42 says Dummy may ask. >Law 43Ab says, subject to exceptions in Law 42 Dummy may not call >attention to an irregularity during the play. > >Question. > >After the trick has been quit, is it too late for dummy to ask?. Are we >now, during the play.? How do you rule? > >If it is not too late for Dummy to ask, when does it become too late? I >assume that if a card has been played by declarer to the next trick the >revoke is established.(Law 63). It is accepted that dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. Once the card is played it is too late to stop the revoke occurring. However, it is not too late to stop it being established. I appreciate it does not say so explicitly in the Laws but I consider that dummy may try to prevent the revoke being established, and I would allow dummy to ask until that time. Of course, after that time it makes little difference, but it could alter declarer's line if he knows he has an unestablished revoke. I do not believe that there is any clash between L42B1 and L43A1B because it is the establishment that dummy is trying to prevent. Mark Abraham wrote: >The play period is defined by Law 41 to begin once the opening lead is >faced. Law 9A2B1 and Law 43A1b both require that dummy not draw attention to >any "irregularity during play". An irregularity occurs when a "deviation >from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws" occurs, from the >Definitions section. An irregularity has occured if a card that was not >allowed to be played to a trick was played to the trick. However the >information that the card played was irregular is not yet known to the >players. If an incorrect card was played, it is not yet an irregularity. Excuse me! An irregularity occurs when it occurs, not when it is discovered! If I kill Herman De Wael, then I have murdered [*] him when he dies, not when it is discovered. [*] Justifiable homicide? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 01:49:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:49:24 +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 BAA05945 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:49:09 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03213 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:47:08 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809221547.KAA03213@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Equitable redress of MI (2) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:47:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but > with B obviously better than the table result. > > In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I call the > chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct information). > > The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. > > Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the > particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will > then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in > between (something like 30% or 70%). > > The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. > > I now state that a score of > > C = cxA + (1-c)xB > > is a more equitable result. > > Do you agree ? Not necessarily. If the probability of 'A' is, say, 70%, then I do not think it is fair to the NOS to deprive them of their shot at a good result [or at least the better of the two] by giving them a fractional score. This is especially true at matchpoints, where 70% of A and 30% of B might actually be a much worse score than A. So this 'in between' result would not necessarily be more equitable. OTOH, if the chance of "getting it right" was on the lowest end (say, 30%), then I might be more inclined towards a middle score. In any case, the most equitable score for the NOS and the most equitable score for the OS might very often not be calculated the same way. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 02:29:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:43 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06187 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12459 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:32:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3607CA7E.5A281E02@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:04:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980922103753.00731378@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > How are A, B, and C being meaured? Total points, or in MP, IMP's or boards, > depending on the nature of the event? Because of the high degree of > non-linearity in converting the table score into any of the usual scoring > forms, this could significantly compromise the so-called equity. > > For example, say the game is MP, and result A (with c=.7) corresponds to > the score of 650, while B is a table score of 620. Suppose further that at > the 12 other tables in the event, there were 9 scores of 650 and 3 with > scores of 620. Then your calculated result of .7*650 + .3*620 = 627 yields > 3 MP. IMO, this is much less equitable than the 12C2 adjustment. Certainly no scores of 627 please. At matchpoints, A is not 650 but rather 62.5% (which is what 9 out of 12 would give you) and B is 12.5%. C = 70%xA + 30%xB is then 47.5%. Please don't respond my question on the basis of this 47.5% though. If 75% of the field reach A, no AC will decide that this pair have only a 70% chance of finding A, unless there is a very good reason to do so ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 02:29:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:39 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06185 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:32 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12455 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:32:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3607C935.EC81A217@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:58:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980922103753.00731378@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 07:50 PM 9/21/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > >Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point just > >before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" outcomes. > >Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but > >with B obviously better than the table result. > > > > This setup ignores the table result (I'll call it "Z"). Since it did in > fact occur, its a priori probablity cannot have been 0. > Yes it can, since A and B are the possible outcomes, given correct information. Z was an outcome with misinformation ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 02:29:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:45 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06192 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:37 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12463 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3607CB53.6D06B281@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:07:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980922103753.00731378@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > Is the weighted average result really going to be perceived as more > equitable? Certainly not if in the example we give the NOS only 3 MP. But > even if we give them the somewhat more reasonable 5.7 MP, we're going to > have a hard time explaining to them where that number comes from, unless > they remember a lot more of their college mathematics than most folks. This > number will inevitably seem like it's pulled from thin air, which is > basically true. > If the result is described to them as 4Spades, making 5 70% of the time and 4 30% of the time, they will understand. Let the computer deal with the result of this. > Is it just me, or does everyone see the distinction between this and the > earlier example posted by Herman on this thread? In that case, Herman > appeared to be proposing a probabalistically weighted score based on what > other pairs would have done _with_ the MI. Although he didn't actually say > so, the subtext appeared to be that if the AC judges that the NOS could > have (or posssibly would have, or certainly should have) gone right even > with the MI, their compensation should be reduced according to their > estimated malfeasance, in order to achieve equity. > Please Michael, I was trying to peel the onion, so to speak. We wil get back to the outer layers in due course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 02:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:52 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06206 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:46 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12467 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:32:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3607CC23.B2850FCF@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:11:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980922103753.00731378@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > For a really good time, put these two problems together. That is, we have > three possible outcomes, A, B and C, with A the most and C (the actual > table result) the least favorable for tthe NOS. We also have the > probabilities (or, more precisely, we will make up the probabilities) of > each of these outcomes both with and without the MI. We will identify these > as a, b, and c and a(mi), b(mi) and c(mi). (Sorry for the notation, but I > feel lost without real subscripts). For 20 points, design an equitable > formula for adjusting the score. For a 5 point bonus, guess within 2 the > greatest number of BLML participants who produce the same non-12C2 formula. > No slide rules! > question one : AS = C + (aA+bB+cC) - (amA+bmB+cmC) 20 points question two : probably just the one 5 points Really good time. BTW, don't pin me on that formula afterwards, it IS a first draft ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 03:26:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:26:58 +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 ESMTP id DAA06498 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:26:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLWG8-0005X8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: <63D3fPA249B2Ew8y@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:28:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <3Ei8QPBQb6B2Ewvu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3Ei8QPBQb6B2Ewvu@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >>I am putting this back onto blml, after having a private correspondence >>with Marv regarding looking at the hands after the cards have been >>returned to the slots. Marv had raised the point regarding "does he need >>permission of the TD to do so provided a member of each side is >>present", and I had opined that he did. Marv then pointed out >> >>Marv: >>> >>>Notice the titles of 7B and 7C, which clearly show that each covers >>>a different phase, 7B during the play, and 7C after cards are >>>returned to the board. I feel that the language of 7B has nothing >>>to do with what happens after the cards are returned to the board, >>>when 7C takes over. Looking at L7C, it only requires the presence >>>of an opponent or the TD, nothing about permission from either one. >>> >> >>MadDog: >> >>I'd not considered this aspect before. 7B *does* contain the phrase >>"during or *after* play" and I have always construed that as "after the >>cards have been returned" as well. On reflection I am inclined to agree >>with your interpretation however. >> >>We all know why the law exists - to prevent mis-boarding. We all know >>about the pest who pulls cards out of the board after play and then puts >>the curtain card (we use a slip of card with the hand record in the UK >>in each slot) back in the wrong slot. I fine for that *always*. >> >>Question: >> >>Should we construe "after play you may look provided members of both >>side are present" or should we construe "the TD's permission is >>required"? I appreciate that in most cases a polite request to the oppo >>is sufficient, and that TDs take no action in this case. > > L7B is clear. "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >(...) during or after play except by permission of the Director." >After play means after play: it does not end when the round ends or >some other time because it does not say so: it says "after play". > after play but before Law 7C has been applied, ie before the cards are returned. Once they are returned I'm not so sure. Marv surprised me on this one and i had another careful look at 7C. > The EBU Orange book says: > >7.2.2 You may not take the cards, or the curtain cards, of other > players out of the board during or after play without the > permission of the TD. At the end of play, however, you may ask an > opponent to show his hand to check on a revoke or to ascertain > the number of tricks won or lost. (Law 7C, 66D) > This is regulation and not Law > I think that attempts to stop people having a post-mortem by not >letting them touch other people's cards are misguided. It is hardly the >job of the TD to upset people and post-mortems are part of bridge. >However, it is reasonable to stop them touching each other's cards, >delaying the game unnecessarily and speaking in voices audible at other >tables - post-mortems without these problems are acceptable. > I agree with all this. -- 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 Sep 23 04:07:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:07:31 +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 EAA06597 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:07:25 +1000 Received: from ip204.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.204]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980922181034.CGKL2535.fep4@ip204.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:10:34 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:10:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360be125.1648610@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <36069201.BBDE5737@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36069201.BBDE5737@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:50:57 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the >particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will >then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in >between (something like 30% or 70%). > >The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. > >I now state that a score of=20 > >C =3D cxA + (1-c)xB=20 > >is a more equitable result. > >Do you agree ? I agree that it is the "expected" result that I would use if I were placing a bet, and that it is equitable in the mathetical sense. (It should be calculated in the final method of scoring.) However, I don't want that kind of equity at all. When c is 50%, for instance, I clearly want the NOS to get the good score (A), because I find it important that the laws ensure that the risk of the NOS getting a worse score than they would have without the MI is very small. Consider that if we use your formula when c=3D70%, as you suggest, we are giving a score which has a 70% risk of being less than the result that would have been achieved at the table - i.e., a 70% risk of our adjusted score actually damaging the NOS. I find that totally wrong. The NOS will leave the event with the (probably correct) impression that their opponents have been allowed to damage them by an irregularity. I've said it before, and I can't resist saying it again: we should not mind that we sometimes give the NOS a higher score than they would have had otherwise - it is their opponents' fault, and there is nothing unnatural in the fact that a player's error sometimes results in a good score to the other side. This is the case for failing to count to 13, and there is nothing unfair in also letting it be the case for committing an irregularity. If c is even as high as 30%, I definitely want the full compensation: A. In other words, I believe that L12C2 is a really good law. However, the formula might be useful when c is very small: when it actually is not "likely" that the good result can be obtained. In that case, the formula could be used to give the NOS a small part of the good score. Notice that where you see the formula as a way to _reduce_ the NOS score when A is likely, I would prefer to use it to _increase_ the NOS score when A is not likely. I really dislike any risk of not giving full compensation to the NOS. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 05:29:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:29:08 +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 FAA06828 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:28:58 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-177.access.net.il [192.116.204.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA22978; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:31:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3607FB11.F433DA2F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:31:29 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A References: <0ZasXVAxO3B2EwfU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes David There was a "crime" - when your partner's face illuminated divinely - it was an infringement of Law 16A ...... " gesture , movement ...." I didn't discuss what happens if you use that UI or not ; it will be another thread for some other Ph.D. thesis. Cheers Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > >IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!! > > That's horrible! > > If partner does something, and I can guess something about his hand > from it, then it is UI. I bend over backwards not to use the > information as required by L73C, and there has been no crime. Good. > > In the vast majority of UI cases there is no crime and no TD call. > > >I would like to have it clear that UI arises if and only if > >there was an infringement of a Law or a procedure....i.e "crime" > >the most important for me is to define that no UI if there wasn't > >the "CRIME". > > Definitely wrong. Example. Partner picks up his hand and looks > *very* happy. I have a borderline pre-empt. I have UI: passing is > suggested so naturally I pre-empt. No crime: I have followed the Laws > and the ethics of the game - but there was UI! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 05:48:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:48:51 +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 ESMTP id FAA06927 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 05:48:44 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLYTQ-0004ha-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:51:45 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:22:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 7 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:22:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: SNIP > > > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to > see > > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > > ########## > > The applicability of L66D is clearly within the time period covered > by L7B, not that of L7C, as I read it. For one thing, the title of > L66 is INSPECTION OF TRICKS, which can hardly be done after the > hands are returned to the board. > > ############ But bear in mind that the Law's headings are for > convenience of reference only; headings are not considered part of > the Laws. Thus, if you read Law 66 ignoring the heading, you might > come a to a different conclusion (as I do). ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 06:45:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 06:45:10 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07065 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 06:44:59 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:48:00 -0700 Message-ID: <36080D96.31FF5AC1@home.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:50:30 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A References: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Dear Sir > > Chapter one of the FBL doesn't include the definition of UI > In a previous thread , I defined it as :" An information which > arrived at a player's mind , after an irregularity occurred ". > IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!! > I would like to have it clear that UI arises if and only if > there was an infringement of a Law or a procedure....i.e "crime" > the most important for me is to define that no UI if there wasn't > the "CRIME". No matter how important that is to you, it is simply plain WRONG! You'll simply have to accept that, since I believe the vote against your position will be 100% unanimous. The simplest example is the hesitation, in itself completely legal and not an infraction in any way. Still it gives pard UI, and it doesn't even have to "arrive at partner's mind" - just be possible it did. Did you intend to say that only if there is damage from the incorrect use of UI can there be a score-adjustment maybe?? PS: Btw your "definition" is doubly wrong. Not all info that arises from an irregularity is UI. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 06:50:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 06:50:02 +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 GAA07094 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 06:49:56 +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 IAA02895; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:52:47 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980923085314.0092f4b0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:53:14 +1200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Exposed quitted trick. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980918093958.00934ce0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>Is testimony from W to the effect of "Of course I remembered the previous >>trick, that's why I needed to see this one!" to be considered self-serving? > And DWS replied (in part): > This is a strange question. The testimony *is* self-serving, so I >suppose we treat it as self-serving! It is getting a bit like the >business of saying things that are as a matter of fashion considered >"politically incorrect". Lots of things said are "self-serving": that >does not mean they are to be discounted. *Some* self-serving statements >are to be discounted but not all - and by discounted I mean literally >that, not ignored. > > If a player says, when asked what 2D meant, "It is on my card" that >is a self-serving statement but we take it at full value. We look at >the card! > > If a player says, "But I was always going to bid 3S" that is a self- >serving statement and we attach little weight to it. > > When a TD or AC asks a player a question he should attach somewhat >less weight to unprovable answers that support the players position. >How much is "somewhat"? That is a matter of judgement for the TD/AC. > I knew it was a strange question at the time (now is that self-serving?) I asked it because it has seemed to me that many (most?) TD's and AC's use the phrase "self-serving" as a synonym for "not to be taken seriously". When, as occasionally happens, I find myself on the other end of the stick I feel myself to be in a real Catch 22 situation, since it's always been clear to me that most testimony I make on my own behalf will tend to be "self-serving" (though I hope that I will also be honest in revealing any information which might not be to my benefit.) In the situation of my hypothetical example (west has asked to inspect the preceding trick, a previous card of his partner's is exposed) it is hard to conceive of any testimony west could make on his own behalf which would not be self-serving (and when made in the heat of the moment, it's quite likely to sound as arrogant as "Of course I knew ...") I think DWS's final paragraph above is precisely on the mark. Would that we were always blessed with TD's/AC's capable of exercising the judgement to achieve that "somewhat". --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Sep 23 08:01:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:01:14 +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 IAA07290 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:01:07 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-177.access.net.il [192.116.204.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA13363; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36081DFA.6F1693B6@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) References: <199809171854.OAA08473@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36022722.3F129A75@village.uunet.be> <36069201.BBDE5737@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with this formula ...... the problem is to choose the "c" which can be different in every pattern of MI ... I still try to classify the MI cases... Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > In trying to derive the formulae I have been promising, I have come to > realise that the most simple problem is this one, and I would like to > hear your opinions on it. > > A player has misinformation, and does something completely normal given > that information. As often happens, the result of the actions is an > absolute zero (say -2000 or something). > > The TD and AC have no problem whatsoever in applying L12. > > Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point just > before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" outcomes. > Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but > with B obviously better than the table result. > > In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I call the > chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct information). > > The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. > > Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the > particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will > then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in > between (something like 30% or 70%). > > The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. > > I now state that a score of > > C = cxA + (1-c)xB > > is a more equitable result. > > Do you agree ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 08:40:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:40:59 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07366 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:40:53 +1000 Received: from modem15.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.143] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zLbA5-0004Q7-00; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:43:58 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:39:41 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. > Date: 22 September 1998 10:05 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Grattan Endicott writes: > >> > >>> WBF Meetings in Lille : other odds and ends > >>> from the minutes. ["Sundries".] > >> > >>> "No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law > >>> that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law > >>> 64 means the two trick penalty." > >> > Have I understood correctly? L432B says: > > > Does the decision of the WBFLC merely reinforce this since presumably > someone found it ambiguous [although I cannot see how]? > > Or does it mean that we are required not to follow the wording of > L43B2B at all? If the latter why not change the Law? I do not believe > that many TDs are going to consider/remember/take much notice of an > interpretation that disagrees with the wording of the Law. > > I feel sure that I am missing something here. > > -- > Puzzled of Liverpool +++ Dear Puzzled of Liverpool The action of the Committee in Lille was simply to confirm its previous interpretation of the Law in question. This is contained in a minute of the WBFLC meeting, 18th October 1987, in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, Ed Theus presiding. The minute reads: " Re Letter from Mr. Ghose. The Committee held: 1. ----------------------------------------------------- 2. The reference in Law 43B2(c) to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the TWO TRICK penalty in this Law. 3. Where defenders ask each other about a possible revoke the Laws do not allow of the procedure in Law 43B2(c). " ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 08:56:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:56:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07406 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:56:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLbOr-00014n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:59:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:17:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Betreft: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. In-Reply-To: <6147161522091998/A47207/EXPERT/11C9B3D02E00*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: >>> Have I understood correctly? L432B says: >>> >>>"...the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been >>>established." >>> >>> L64 gives some situations where two tricks are transferred, some >>>situations where one trick is transferred, and some situations where no >>>trick is transferred. L43B2B is unambiguous: it does not say that there >>>is a two-trick penalty but that you follow the dictates of L64 to assess >>>the penalty. >>> >>> Does the decision of the WBFLC merely reinforce this since presumably >>>someone found it ambiguous [although I cannot see how]? >>> >>> Or does it mean that we are required not to follow the wording of >>>L43B2B at all? If the latter why not change the Law? I do not believe >>>that many TDs are going to consider/remember/take much notice of an >>>interpretation that disagrees with the wording of the Law. >>> >>> I feel sure that I am missing something here. >I tried to explain this for BLML some weeks ago. The normal revoke penalty for >the second trick is given when either revoker won the revoking trick or later >did win a trick with a card he could have played in the trick he revoked. This >is based on the fact that revoker did not follow suit (but revoked). In law 43 >(and also 62 since last year) revoker does follow suit after illegal attention >is drawn to the revoke. But the penalty is treated as that belonging to an >established revoke. Thus: following suit (and not winning the trick) you still >get a penalty trick when you win a trick with a card you could have played in >the revoking trick. Some people don't like that and I have some sympathy with >them. But if we restrict this penalty to one trick this means a bonus to the >player illegally asking his partner about a revoke. Not asking might lead to a >two trick penalty (the normal penalty after an established revoke). Since the >laws should not encourage infractions, we had no way of following this >suggestion. Thanks. It appears I was merely being simplistic in that I am following what seems to me to be an unambiguous Law: apparently others do not find it unambiguous. I find no difficulty with this Law. I do not equate it at all with the problems over L63B where the penalty can easily be three tricks, but that is because of the penalty card element: no such difficulty applies to L43B2B. It just means what it says. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 08:56:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:56:13 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07405 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:56:03 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLbOm-00014G-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:10:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> In my view, a severe disciplinary penalty would have been >> applicable in the actual case regardless of score adjustment; South=12s >> actions strike me as wholly reprehensible. I do not consider that they >> are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may >> =13appropriately=14 attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or >> play =16 such deception as South practised does not begin to come under >> the category of =13appropriate=14 as far as I am concerned. [s] >Second, although I am agnostic on the question of whether the "could >have known" clause applies here, a disciplinary penalty seems >*incredibly* harsh. After all, in this forum a considerable number of=20 >contributers with a very keen sense of the ethical responsibilities of a >bridge player didn't think anything illegal or unethical had been >done, and many more were not sure. Even those who considered the action >illegal didn't believe the player in question had known his action to >be illegal or unethical.=20 I agree that this argument makes a _severe_ disciplinary penalty harsh. However a minor disciplinary penalty might be suitable to make sure it does not recur. Vive Admiral Byng! -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >But did he pretend to have a heart suit? Opposite a silenced >partner, there is no such thing as a normal bidding system. A 1H >opening does not promise partner a certain number of hearts. It >really means nothing more than "I'm willing to play 1H if the >other three players now passes" and possibly "I want a heart >lead". > >I would not call the 1H bid a psyche, because the concept of a >psyche is meaningless opposite a silenced partner. I disagree strongly with this. Whatever you and your partner may play, Jesper, I expect length when my partner bids and I am silenced, and I believe I am in the vast majority. [s] >However, I do not have a clear opinion of whether or not a L72B1 >adjustment is in order. It is true that South could have known >beforehand that silencing partner would give him an almost >risk-free chance to ask for a heart lead without indicating the >nature of his hand. On the other hand, an equivalent argument >could be used for adjustment whenever a weak hand silences >partner by bidding out of turn, and I believe that would be going >too far. I have already suggested that it is the combination, and I do not think David is suggesting otherwise. We are not saying L72B1 applies whenever a weak hand calls out of turn but when it does so and then makes a later call whose only intention is to deceive, which most though not all of us call a psyche. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 03:35 AM 17/09/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: >> I do not consider that they >>are permitted under Law 73E, which states that a player may >>=93appropriately=94 attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or >>play =96 such deception as South practised does not begin to come under >>the category of =93appropriate=94 as far as I am concerned. >I agree with this. UI doesn't come into it. I have always entertained >grave doubts about the ethics of the bid, and am glad someone else has >raised the issue. I was told over the weekend of a case where someone had psyched opposite a partner who was forced to pass. The feeling, even amongst those who normally tolerate psyches, was that this was inappropriate and should be outlawed, even if it was not so now. I think the above reading outlaws this action. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:52:54 +0100, "David Burn" > wrote: >>It is my belief that, having found himself (fortuitously, >>and without premeditation, but that does not matter) in a position >>where he could deceive the opponents more or less without risk, the >>player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate >>deception. > >Interesting - I would actually consider him duty bound to do what >he could to get a good result on the board under the >circumstances. He found an imaginative bid which made up for the >handicap of not being able to get help from partner in the >auction. I think that most people think the basic aim is to play better bridge. While psyches are legal, they are not meant to replace the game of bridge. I consider it appalling to psyche in such a postition. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Steve Willner wrote: >But this is alarming indeed. Why is a psych incompatible with fair >play? The opponents know that North is barred. Again I ask, are >false cards by declarer incompatible with fair play? How do they >differ from the current situation except for being more familiar? They are part of the normal game of bridge. Do you really think it is right to attempt to gain from your infractions? Of course you will occasionally through rub-of-the-green happenings, but this is not like that: you reach a position which would not exist without an infraction and *then* you try this sort of deception. Does it not leave a nasty taste in the mouth? [s] >> (Ob Question: is the information that East >> has banned a spade lead rather than a club lead "authorised" to North, >> in that he now knows that a second club will not cash? The answer to >> this is not, I venture to suggest, as obvious as your first reaction >> might indicate.) >I'm missing the point, I guess. I would have said AI and that the >answer is obvious. Me too. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Damian Hassan wrote: >This distinction between L23 and L72B1 is confusing me. > > When considering this case of the psyche after the OBOOT, everyone seems = to >be interpreting the wording of L72B1: >"...that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that >the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side..." >as meaning that if the offender could have known at the time of his >irregularity that the irregularity *and the penalties arising from the >irregularity and his subsequent actions* would be likely to damage the >non-offending side. > >If this is the correct interpretation, then why do we have L23? Is it mere= ly >a redundant restatement of L72B1 as it applies to a particular set of >irregularities? I believe so. L72B1 is new, and to delete L23 would create numbering anomalies. I think it is only there for historical reasons. I suggest that in 2007 L17D, which is misplaced as part of L17, should become L23. No other renumbering would be necessary. [Sorry for long- time members of BLML: I am repeating myself!] -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- John R. Mayne wrote: >Something that appears to have been lost in this discussion: > >Isn't 1H *purely* lead-directing when partner is barred? It would not >occur to me to bid any number of spades, or anything but 1H (or 2H), >given the 6=3D0=3D2=3D5 trash I've got. I hope your partner alerts. Most people, when making a bid that is an attempt to play there, bid their longest suit. If your partner knows you do not, then he should alert and explain this. I also presume it is on your CC. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >My solution is that L72A5 gives the _player_ the right (and thus >IMO almost duty) to try to score well after the irregularity, >while L72B1 under certain circumstances ("could have known...") >gives the _TD_ the right to take away a good score _afterwards_. > >If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly >to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to >ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the >player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. Bidding a void because partner is silenced by your infraction isn't playing bridge well. It is just plain nasty. -------------- :::::::::::::: ------------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:05:40 +0100, "David Burn" > wrote: >>I am not quite >>certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose >>this on the convention card? >Nowhere. Convention cards are used to disclose partnership >agreements, and this is not a partnership agreement. With a >silenced partner, you are obviously bidding (almost) without >partnership agreements, and the convention card is useless. The >typical 3NT call with any fairly good hand in that situation is >not described on any convention card I've seen. It is not obvious at all. Many people think it unethical. I think it is immoral. If you and your partner choose to follow this action, presumably because you think it ethical and moral, please do not call it obvious. The average player makes bids that he is likely to play in his longest suit. You play it as a lead-director: that's a convention, requiring an alert and to be on the CC. Suppose you are on lead to 3NT with five hearts, and your partner has bid 1H when you are barred. Do you lead a heart? Presumably not, since there is a likelihood he has a void. I lead a heart because I am not playing your undisclosed convention: I expect my partner to have length in the suit. Please explain to me how this is not a partnership agreement. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 09:22:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:22:54 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07545 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:22:49 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLbok-0002g6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:25:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:25:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Suppose you are on lead to 3NT with five hearts, and your partner has >bid 1H when you are barred. Do you lead a heart? Presumably not, since >there is a likelihood he has a void. I lead a heart because I am not >playing your undisclosed convention: I expect my partner to have length >in the suit. Please explain to me how this is not a partnership >agreement. > au contraire, of course I lead a heart, that's what partner wanted, he bid hearts, he gets hearts led. Unlucky, they decided on NT not a suit, it doesn't alter the fact that partner wants them led. It's not my problem that partner silenced me, I'm just doing what I'm told. (Unless of course I have a prior agreement in which case I've failed to alert as well, and am probably in contravention of about half the FLB). -- 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 Sep 23 09:49:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:49:31 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07603 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:49:23 +1000 Received: from modem19.daffy.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zLcER-0005JR-00; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:52:32 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Reg Busch" Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:49:27 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: Reg Busch > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Subsequent v consequent > Date: 21 September 1998 08:33 > > WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress > for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment > in the subsequent action but *only* by an action that is evidently > irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action > commonly referred to as a 'double shot')'. > > Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the > *only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an > irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play > or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for > example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were > heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of > a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan > doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? > ++++ The words were chosen with some care. Firstly we should highlight that in considering score adjustment for the offending side both consequent and subsequent advantage are taken into account in situations where Law 72B1 applies. In other situations, and for the non-offending side, only consequent damage to the non-offending side leads to score adjustment. However, any action by the non-offending side has to be adjudged "irrational, wild or gambling" if it is to annul their right to adjustment for consequent damage. An error in the auction or play, however bad, does not take away that right if it is not adjudged to be "irrational, wild or gambling". A "double shot" is defined to be "gambling". A result obtained solely by the offending side's good play subsequent to an irregularity (and not related to the irregularity) is not adjusted. As for 'egregious' it depends what meaning it is considered to have; if it can include actions that are not deemed irrational, wild or gambling, then 'egregious' is not the test. A result which comes only from a subsequent and unrelated breach of the laws is not adjustable by reason of the prior infraction and is subject to the relevant law. A revoke, for example, is not a considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 10:17:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:17:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07641 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:17:17 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLcfR-00021n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:39:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There has been some discussion over whether South's actions were ethical. Ethical normally carries the stigma of knowledgeable, and if we cannot agree on whether they are proper, then they are certainly not unethical. Having said that, there still seems to be a moral issue since many feel that to psyche opposite a silenced partner is unsporting. While I still believe that L72B1 could be used in this specific case, that is only because of the weakness of South's hand. The normal case will be a psyche by someone whose hand is better, and the test of 'could have known at the time of the infraction' fails. It still seems to me that the player is attempting to win otherwise than by playing bridge, and I would like to stop such a practice. However, I am not convinced that it is illegal. I find some of Jesper's arguments very strange, and cannot remember ever disagreeing with him so much before. Perhaps I am wrong! However, I cannot see how you can possibly equate lead-directing and random. Incidentally, why is it so obvious to bid your void as a lead-director: will it be a good lead against 3NT? Are you sure you are not being led astray by knowledge of the hand? I do not believe that the average player bids suits he does not have when his partner is silenced. If you and your partner know that you do then there is no doubt this is a convention that needs to be disclosed. --------------- :::::::::::::::::: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I believe there are a number of one-time coups (which occur to one at >the instant of perpetration) which one can bring off at the table and >this one was one of them. That it worked beyond belief is Richard's >misfortune. I wish I'd been the one to find it 20 years ago. > >Richard fully accepts he'll never get away with this coup again, he knew >that right from the time the original ruling was made. I worry about this. What we have been discussing here is whether what was perpetrated was legal or not. If it was legal, why should it not be repeated? --------------- :::::::::::::::::: David Burn wrote: >I know the South player well and the rest of the list (with one >exception!) does not. He is always taking the mickey out of me - but I bet I'm not the exception you are talking about! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 10:17:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:17:24 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07642 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:17:17 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLcfS-00021o-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:46:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <63D3fPA249B2Ew8y@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <3Ei8QPBQb6B2Ewvu@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >> L7B is clear. "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >>(...) during or after play except by permission of the Director." >>After play means after play: it does not end when the round ends or >>some other time because it does not say so: it says "after play". >after play but before Law 7C has been applied, ie before the cards are >returned. Once they are returned I'm not so sure. ... and i had another >careful look at 7C. OK, I have had another careful look at L7C - and it does not give me the right to touch someone else's cards. >> The EBU Orange book says: >> >>7.2.2 You may not take the cards, or the curtain cards, of other >> players out of the board during or after play without the >> permission of the TD. At the end of play, however, you may ask an >> opponent to show his hand to check on a revoke or to ascertain >> the number of tricks won or lost. (Law 7C, 66D) >This is regulation and not Law I think it is intended as interpretation of the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 10:40:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:40:35 +1000 Received: from ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07703 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:40:30 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 1-1U40000L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:43:39 -0700 Message-ID: <360844D0.2DAE3196@home.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:46:08 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A References: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> <36080D96.31FF5AC1@home.com> <36081C4D.D9B46DA8@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > Hesitation is an infringement of laws ( 16 and maybe 73D) - No it isn't. If you still insist, please quote the part of L16 where it says so. Tks. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 11:02:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:02:05 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07748 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:01:59 +1000 Received: from modem22.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.150] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zLdMh-0002xG-00; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:05:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:03:12 +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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: Grattan Endicott > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A > Date: 22 September 1998 09:02 > > IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!!> ++++ I am part of the 100% that was mentioned. Grattan. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 11:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:27:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07823 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:27:31 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLdlR-0003ni-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:30:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:29:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <3Ei8QPBQb6B2Ewvu@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >> writes > >>> L7B is clear. "No player shall touch any cards other than his own >>>(...) during or after play except by permission of the Director." >>>After play means after play: it does not end when the round ends or >>>some other time because it does not say so: it says "after play". > >>after play but before Law 7C has been applied, ie before the cards are >>returned. Once they are returned I'm not so sure. ... and i had another >>careful look at 7C. > > OK, I have had another careful look at L7C - and it does not give me >the right to touch someone else's cards. > ok, I concede, 7B bans touching anyone else's cards, and 7C does not give that right back. Sorry Marv I've been converted :) 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 Wed Sep 23 11:27:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:27:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07828 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:27:35 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLdlU-0006vJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:30:44 +0000 Message-ID: <$eemFcAP5EC2EwWp@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:26:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > >>I believe there are a number of one-time coups (which occur to one at >>the instant of perpetration) which one can bring off at the table and >>this one was one of them. That it worked beyond belief is Richard's >>misfortune. I wish I'd been the one to find it 20 years ago. >> >>Richard fully accepts he'll never get away with this coup again, he knew >>that right from the time the original ruling was made. > > I worry about this. What we have been discussing here is whether what >was perpetrated was legal or not. If it was legal, why should it not be >repeated? > the point I have in mind is that, it having worked SO well, when he next does it he *could have known*. My argument all along has been that he *couldn't have known* at the time of the infraction. If it's alerted it's an illegal convention (psyching a lead director facing a passed partner), and if it's not then it's a CPU IMO (btw DWS, Richard is very fond of you) 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 Wed Sep 23 12:28:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:28:00 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07976 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:27:49 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmgn.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.23]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09621 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980922222918.00733f0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:29:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A In-Reply-To: <360844D0.2DAE3196@home.com> References: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> <36080D96.31FF5AC1@home.com> <36081C4D.D9B46DA8@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 9/22/98 -0700, Jan wrote: >Dany Haimovici wrote: > >> Hesitation is an infringement of laws ( 16 and maybe 73D) - > >No it isn't. If you still insist, please quote the part of L16 where it >says so. >Tks. > How about L73A2 : "calls and plays should be made...without undue hesitation or haste". Technically this is part of the proprieties, and as such might be regarded by some as less binding than the rest of the Laws, but there it is at any rate. But Dany does raise a point that Steve Wilner and I have repeatedly raised in other contexts. Prior to the 1987 revision, the laws did distinguish between UI arising from illegal or inappropriate action (e.g., a forgotten alert, a mis-explanation of agreements, or an undue hesitation) and UI arising from appropriate conduct required by the Laws and regulations (a correct alert or explanation, a proper review of the auction, etc). The latter was treated more liberally than the former in evaluating LA's and so forth. In his TBW AC series in the early 80's, Kaplan stated that in the "good UI" situations, the UI recipient should be allowed to take reasonable actions, even if they are suggested by the UI, so long as they would not be considered unusual in the absence of the UI. His quantitative yardstick was a 75% action, as compared to the 25% action for the "bad UI". I appreciate that this distinction was dropped in 1987, and Dany's apparent insistence that UI is defined only as the result of an infraction is certainly not correct, either in fact or in the current spirit of the Laws. But it does seem to me to have been a useful distinction anyway, and one which I would like to see re-incorporated, perhaps in an even stronger form. Partner alerts my 2D opening bid and correctly explains it as Flannery. Is this UI? Yes, according to the prevailing wisdom. Logically then, am I forbidden from basing my further bidding on the expectation that partner is counting on me holding a Flannery hand? Certainly not, if my hand is AJXX, KQTXX,QTX,X. But apparently so, if I actually hold XX,XX,KQJXXX,Qxx. But what precisely is the difference? Am I allowed to base my bids and plays on partnership agreements? Of course! In this sense, true and factual information about our methods is _authorized_. The conventional answer is that in the latter case, partner's explanation is UI because it is self-evident that I did not remember our methods before the alert and explanation. In this sense, it seems it is not the information which is unauthorized, but its presumptive source. But in this vein, I posted a question in which partner's review of the auction, requested by the opponents, clarified a sequence which was confusing to me because of a mis-heard bid. Is the correct bidding history, legally provided by partner in response to the opponents' request, AI or UI? The unanimous response was that this is AI, even though it, like the Flannery 2D explanation above, was the result of a (legal) remark by partner which corrected a misunderstanding on my part. When we treat partner's proper actions as UI, we introduce a variety of logical dilemmas into the mix. We had one long thread about a year ago concerning whether a legal question about an alerted bid could effectively rule out a lead in the suit bid (obviously!) and by logical extension, also rule out a lead in the other suits! Steamy stuff. Potentially, any call or play I might make is subject to review under L16. And given the steep burden of refutation placed on the putative OS, this can be a scary prospect. Wouldn't it be a lot cleaner just to define UI as derived only from improper or illegal actions by partner, as Dany suggests is already the case? The downside is that sometimes, someone will glean some benefit from partner's actions, e.g., by being alerted to their actual, but temporarily forgotten, agreements. But it seems to me that this cost is comparatively trivial. Often, a player will work this out for himself, either remembering his error before partner's action, or working it out in the course of the subsequent bidding. And even if he would not have done, it will seldom be terribly useful in avoiding a disaster. What, after all, can I hope to accomplish with the weak 2 hand above when partner is counting on a Flannery hand? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 14:24:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:24:19 +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 OAA08245 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:24:13 +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 VAA15070; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230426.VAA15070@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:24:55 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Dear David > > If should turn the page , would see that you allowed to handle > your cards only !!!!! > Maddog's answer is true too , but the Law is in 66D itself... > > Dany > > David Martin wrote: > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to see > > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > > ########## Don't understand. L66 covers INSPECTION OF TRICKS, the period of time before the cards are put into the board. It does not apply to the period of time after the cards are in the board (L7B). The Laws sometimes make things inconvenient for the TD. Sorry about that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 14:36:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:36:28 +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 OAA08274 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:36:22 +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 VAA16734 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230439.VAA16734@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:36:51 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > In trying to derive the formulae I have been promising, I have come to > realise that the most simple problem is this one, and I would like to > hear your opinions on it. > > A player has misinformation, and does something completely normal given > that information. As often happens, the result of the actions is an > absolute zero (say -2000 or something). > > The TD and AC have no problem whatsoever in applying L12. > > Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point just > before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" outcomes. > Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, but > with B obviously better than the table result. > > In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I call the > chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct information). > > The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. > > Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the > particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score will > then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in > between (something like 30% or 70%). > > The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. > > I now state that a score of > > C = cxA + (1-c)xB > > is a more equitable result. > > Do you agree ? > Yes, for the NOS. For the OS, assign -A. No thoughts of equity for them. This seems to accord with L12C2's philosophy. The NOS gets what is favorable and likely (with probability calculations), and the OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. That was easy. Next problem please. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 14:48:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:48:49 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA08301 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:48:44 +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 VAA18308; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230451.VAA18308@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Subject: Re: Controlled psyches Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:49:02 -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 Richard F. Beye wrote: > MLFrench wrote: > > >The ACBL's policy on psychs is currently best stated in the > >handbook called *Duplicate Decisions*, which I assume is official. > >It is included in a discussion of L40, Partnership Understandings. > >The position is not so extreme as Oakie's, only saying that > >frequent, random psychs can result in disciplinary action. If a > >pair psychs three or more times in a single session, and this is > >brought to the attention of the TD, he "should investigate the > >possibility that excessive psyching is taking place." > > > Duplicate Decisions is written primarily for club directors. It does not > state any 'official' policy that I am aware of. > Maybe Chyah will be kind enough to tell us where the official ACBL policy on psychs is to be found. I know one thing: it won't be in *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*. And while she's at it, maybe she will be able to tell us whether *Duplicate Decisions* represents "official" ACBL policy for all of its TDs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 15:00:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:00:56 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA08333 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:00:51 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn11p62.ozemail.com.au [203.108.79.254]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14829 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:04:00 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:04:00 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199809230504.PAA14829@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Dummy calls Director! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West dealer, NS vulnerable North 3 AK9654 AK86 42 West East The Bidding KQJ75 A2 --- QJ732 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH QJ752 9 PASS 1H PASS PASS J93 AKQ87 2H DBL RDBL ALL PASS South T9864 T8 T43 T65 East leads SA, all follow as South tracks dummy. East switches to CA and South calls director. Players are arguing about whether dummy has the right to call the director when I arrive. I explain dummy is only allowed to call once an infraction has occurred. "Call me at the end when you are no longer dummy", I venture. " I don't think I'm dummy" replies South After examining the bidding, I say "It appears that there are four dummies here so no-one can call the director" I supposed that North's play to the first trick becomes a penalty card, so the first trick was replayed OK. All South's cards became penalty cards, and the hand proceeded double dummy (1 Off) I'm taking up some of that 15 stick golf. Tony "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke" R.Kipling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 15:50:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:50:54 +1000 Received: from nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au (nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au [147.109.36.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA08448 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:50:49 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:55:26 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:55:02 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy calls Director! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Tony Musgrove 23/09/98 15:04:00 >>> wrote >East leads SA, all follow as South tracks dummy. East switches to CA and >South calls director. Players are arguing about whether dummy has the = right >to call the director when I arrive. I explain dummy is only allowed to = call >once an infraction has occurred.=20 Actually, not quite correct. Dummy is only allowed to call for the = director during play once an infraction has occurred AND one of the other players has = drawn attention to it. (See law 42A1 (a) and (b) ) While it may seem I am being a bit picky on a side-issue to the real = problem, I often encounter a statement by a player such as =22But Tony M. told me = last week that dummy can call the director after noticing an infraction=21=22. = Players do tend to get confused by seemingly contradictory rulings from directors. Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 16:42:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:42:59 +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 QAA08552 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:42:52 +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 XAA03294 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230645.XAA03294@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:43:46 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: ---------Dany wrote: > > > > > > Dear David > > > > If should turn the page , would see that you allowed to handle > > your cards only !!!!! > > Maddog's answer is true too , but the Law is in 66D itself... > > > > Dany > > > > David Martin wrote: > > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to > see > > > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > > > ########## > > Don't understand. L66 covers INSPECTION OF TRICKS, the period of > time before the cards are put into the board. It does not apply to > the period of time after the cards are in the board (L7B). That's L7C, sorry. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 17:24:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA08672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:24:12 +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 RAA08667 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:24:07 +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 AAA07992 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809230726.AAA07992@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:25:01 -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: John (MadDog) Probst > ok, I concede, 7B bans touching anyone else's cards, and 7C does not > give that right back. Sorry Marv I've been converted :) Cheers John > 7B says that "no player shall touch any cards other than his own...during or after play except by permission of the Director." 7C says that after cards are returned to the board, "thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." If my position is wrong, how come TDs are permitting players to inspect an opponent's hand after hands are back in the board, with the permission of the opponent? What happened to the ban? You can't have it both ways. A better argument against my position would be that after the hands are returned to the board, I can look at my own hand, and/or ask partner (or anyone else) to take his/her hand out and show it to me, without the TD's presence. Under no circumstances could anyone touch another's cards without the TD's permission. That would accord with both 7B and 7C, without contradicting either of them. It would also disallow a time-honored custom. I have always enjoyed quiet post-mortems when there is plenty of time remaining in a round, obeying the common sense rules of not having more than one hand out at a time, and not criticizing the opponents' bidding or play. It doesn't seem right that an opponent should be able to deny me this pleasure. When TDs say permission of an opponent is required to look at his/her hand, they are creating a law, not following one. L7 requires no such thing. If TDs say they will look the other way if only one hand is out during a quiet post-mortem, then no player should have the power of preventing it. Anyway, "after play" has to be taken in context. The scope of L66 (INSPECTION OF TRICKS) surely ends when tricks have been inspected and a result has been agreed, with hands ready to be put back in the board. When it says, "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected..., but no player shall handle cards other than his own," it is referring to the time between cessation of play and the end of the trick-inspection process, not to some later time. I feel that the "ban" in L7B has a similar limited scope of effectivity, but I readily admit a bias that may be influencing this belief. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 18:22:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:22:57 +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 ESMTP id SAA08742 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:22:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLkFE-0001wj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:26:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:07:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ I am part of the 100% that was mentioned. >Grattan. ++++ There's a first .... :)))) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 18:25:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:25:11 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08756 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:25:03 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-138.access.net.il [192.116.204.138]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA28369; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:27:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3608B103.9CF34403@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:27:47 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A References: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> <36080D96.31FF5AC1@home.com> <36081C4D.D9B46DA8@internet-zahav.net> <360844D0.2DAE3196@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan Law 16A : ......."After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information..........or by unmistakable hesitation...." Of course I spoke about a clear hesitation - not the case one fell asleep and all at that table felt it and shouted - ."Hey stop thinking of your girlfriend and call/play , we want go home..." And Law 73 covers - or intends to cover - every unusual behavior or suspicious event - like a cough or snorreee (sic) !!! But please read paragraphs 73A2 and 73D2 where hesitation is mentioned Cheers Danny Jan Kermess wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > Hesitation is an infringement of laws ( 16 and maybe 73D) - > > No it isn't. If you still insist, please quote the part of L16 where it > says so. > Tks. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 18:25:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:25:31 +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 SAA08765 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:25:22 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-138.access.net.il [192.116.204.138]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA28487; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:28:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3608B115.5EB79474@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:28:05 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Law 7 References: <199809230426.VAA15070@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 It is true - Law 66 deals wih trick inspection - even then you are not allowed to touch someone's else cards. For sure Law 7 doesn't allow you to touch someone's else cards. As I told , in club 'social" play I'll not try to "hunt" such players , but if summoned I'll always explain them -.. "never try even to smell someone's cards , for sure it is forbidden to touch their cards.." ... LOL !! Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > Dear David > > > > If should turn the page , would see that you allowed to handle > > your cards only !!!!! > > Maddog's answer is true too , but the Law is in 66D itself... > > > > Dany > > > > David Martin wrote: > > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ######### Doesn't Law 66D give a player the right to ask to > see > > > > another player's hand (but not to touch it himself)? # > > > > ########## > > Don't understand. L66 covers INSPECTION OF TRICKS, the period of > time before the cards are put into the board. It does not apply to > the period of time after the cards are in the board (L7B). > > The Laws sometimes make things inconvenient for the TD. Sorry about > that. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 20:24:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:24:25 +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 UAA08997 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:24:18 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-159.access.net.il [192.116.204.159]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA11926 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:27:19 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3608CCF6.727ABA61@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:27:02 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: The definition of UI - L16 and L75A References: <3607599B.8609C039@internet-zahav.net> <36080D96.31FF5AC1@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan First I point that my word "crime" means infringement of a Law... Jan Kamras wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Dear Sir > > > > Chapter one of the FBL doesn't include the definition of UI > > > In a previous thread , I defined it as :" An information which > > arrived at a player's mind , after an irregularity occurred ". > > > IMHO - if there was no "crime" there can't be UI !!!!!!!!!!! > > > I would like to have it clear that UI arises if and only if > > there was an infringement of a Law or a procedure....i.e "crime" > > the most important for me is to define that no UI if there wasn't > > the "CRIME". > > No matter how important that is to you, it is simply plain WRONG! You'll > simply have to accept that, since I believe the vote against your > position will be 100% unanimous. > The simplest example is the hesitation, in itself completely legal and > not an infraction in any way. Hesitation is an infringement of laws ( 16 and maybe 73D) - IMO the UI arises from this infringement . I don't think it is a wrong description....was an infringement here ?? > Still it gives pard UI, and it doesn't > even have to "arrive at partner's mind" - just be possible it did. > > Did you intend to say that only if there is damage from the incorrect > use of UI can there be a score-adjustment maybe?? I didn't speak about what to do after UI appeared - I believe that the principle dealing with it is clear enough and we all agree ; if the UI damaged the other pair and there is a relationship between the UI and the damage , Score would be adjusted . > > PS: Btw your "definition" is doubly wrong. Not all info that arises from > an irregularity is UI. I never said it - where did I write that after infringement of a law there appears UI..... Even Philosophically and mathematically there is a huge difference... I still wait for the definition of UI ....... Cheers Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 20:45:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:45:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09061 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:45:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zLmT2-00020X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:48:21 +0000 Message-ID: <190wIHAqeLC2EwE4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:56:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy calls Director! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Simon Edler wrote: >While it may seem I am being a bit picky on a side-issue to the real problem, >I often encounter a statement by a player such as "But Tony M. told me last >week that dummy can call the director after noticing an infraction!". Players >do tend to get confused by seemingly contradictory rulings from directors. ... which is another good reason to open the Law book and read therefrom, and then explain carefully. Mind you, the stories that I have heard where a player or TD has given as a reason "David Stevenson said ..." -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 23 23:57:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:57:50 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09479 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:57:43 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA034409250; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:00:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA264779246; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:00:46 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:00:34 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Dummy calls Director! Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Objet: Dummy calls Director! West dealer, NS vulnerable =20 =20 =20 North 3 AK9654 AK86 42 =20 West East =20 KQJ75 A2 --- QJ732 =20 QJ752 9 =20 J93 AKQ87 =20 South T9864 T8 T43 T65 =20 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH P 1H P P 2H X XX ALL PASS =20 East leads SA, all follow as South tracks dummy. East switches to CA and South calls director. Players are arguing about whether dummy has the right to call the director when I arrive. I explain dummy is only allowed to call once an infraction has occurred. =20 =20 " Call me at the end when you are no longer dummy ", I venture. =20 " I don't think I'm dummy " replies South =20 =20 =20 After examining the bidding, I say " It appears that there are four dummies =20 here so no-one can call the director " =20 I supposed that North's play to the first trick becomes a penalty card, so the first trick was replayed OK. All South's cards became penalty cards, and the hand proceeded double dummy (1 Off) =20 I'm taking up some of that 15 stick golf. =20 Tony =20 Interesting=85I had sometimes to rule when 2 players spread cards on table as " dummy ", one of them beeing defender, after a normal and legal lead. The ruling then is clear : just apply Law 51 : all card exposed by defender are penalised, lead penalty as long as cards are exposed, and declarer can choose among exposed cards that can be played to each trick=85..not realy bridge=85=85 =20 Last time something like this happened it was first round in my club and I ruled " you reshuffle "=85.. Is the above case different because " lead out of turn " by real dummy? I see nothing clear in Laws 47 or 60 concerning play after such an illegal " opening lead " by dummy. If card played to the first trick by North (the legal opening leader) becomes a penalty card and must normaly be played to the first legal opportunity, does it become the opening lead card? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 01:02:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:02:44 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11898 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:02:20 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lc49k.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.52]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA07777 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980923110343.00733fb8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:03:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) In-Reply-To: <199809230439.VAA16734@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:36 PM 9/22/98 -0700, Marv wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> In trying to derive the formulae I have been promising, I have >come to >> realise that the most simple problem is this one, and I would >like to >> hear your opinions on it. >> >> A player has misinformation, and does something completely normal >given >> that information. As often happens, the result of the actions is >an >> absolute zero (say -2000 or something). >> >> The TD and AC have no problem whatsoever in applying L12. >> >> Upon consideration, it is determined that, starting at the point >just >> before the misinformation, there are just two "probable" >outcomes. >> Let's call them A and B, with A being the more favourable to NOS, >but >> with B obviously better than the table result. >> >> In conforming with the notation I have used for the formulae, I >call the >> chance of attaining A : c (the probability with Correct >information). >> >> The chance of attaining B is then : 1-c. >> >> Obviously there is some lower and higher bound for c at which the >> particular outcome becomes not "likely", and the adjusted score >will >> then be A or B, but let's suppose that c is actually somewhere in >> between (something like 30% or 70%). >> >> The L12C2 adjusted score is obviously A. >> >> I now state that a score of >> >> C = cxA + (1-c)xB >> >> is a more equitable result. >> >> Do you agree ? >> >Yes, for the NOS. For the OS, assign -A. No thoughts of equity for >them. > >This seems to accord with L12C2's philosophy. The NOS gets what is >favorable and likely (with probability calculations), and the OS >gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. > It may or may not be more equitable, but it definitely does not accord with L12C2, which instructs us to award the _most favorable_ likely result to the NOS. In this case, that means A, not some weighted-average monstrosity which generally has zero probability of occurring, absent the infraction. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 01:38:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:42 +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 BAA12011 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:29 +1000 Received: from ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.67]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980923154136.EDYM2535.fep4@ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:41:36 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:41:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360b1220.6251338@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, 22 Sep 1998 19:10:56 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>I would not call the 1H bid a psyche, because the concept of a >>psyche is meaningless opposite a silenced partner. > > I disagree strongly with this. Whatever you and your partner may >play, Jesper, I expect length when my partner bids and I am silenced, >and I believe I am in the vast majority. So do I. But I have no explicit _agreement_ with partner about it. And playing with my regular partner for the past two years, I have no implicit agreement either, since (if I remember correctly) we haven't yet encountered a "you must pass" ruling. If this is a psyche, is 3NT on a balanced 15-count opposite a silenced partner not also a psyche? Actually, I'll admit that "psyche" might be a useful practical name for certain calls even in that situation - but since I am unable to define with any reasonable precision which calls should deserve that label, I prefer not to use it all. But the discussion of whether we'll call Richard's 1H call a psyche or not is not the most interesting part of this thread. >>However, I do not have a clear opinion of whether or not a L72B1 >>adjustment is in order. It is true that South could have known >>beforehand that silencing partner would give him an almost >>risk-free chance to ask for a heart lead without indicating the >>nature of his hand. On the other hand, an equivalent argument >>could be used for adjustment whenever a weak hand silences >>partner by bidding out of turn, and I believe that would be going >>too far. > > I have already suggested that it is the combination, and I do not >think David is suggesting otherwise. We are not saying L72B1 applies >whenever a weak hand calls out of turn but when it does so and then >makes a later call whose only intention is to deceive, which most >though not all of us call a psyche. I understand that, and I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying that it worries me a little that there does not seem to be any difference in principle, only in degree, between the two situations. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:52:54 +0100, "David Burn" >> wrote: >>>It is my belief that, having found himself (fortuitously, >>>and without premeditation, but that does not matter) in a position >>>where he could deceive the opponents more or less without risk, the >>>player was in duty bound not to practise such a wholly inappropriate >>>deception. >> >>Interesting - I would actually consider him duty bound to do what >>he could to get a good result on the board under the >>circumstances. He found an imaginative bid which made up for the >>handicap of not being able to get help from partner in the >>auction. > > I think that most people think the basic aim is to play better bridge. >While psyches are legal, they are not meant to replace the game of >bridge. Since psyches are legal, they are (also) bridge. Once in a while an unusually good opportunity for a psyche comes up, and if you believe that your best chance of a good score is to psyche, and if you like the kind of bridge that psyching is, then the right thing to do is to psyche. (You may not believe it, but I'm actually one of those dull players who never psyche!) > I consider it appalling to psyche in such a postition. Why? You are playing under the severe handicap of a silenced partner, removing your chance of a controlled auction (you'll never know many spades he has and you'll therefore never know whether a sacrifice could be right). But the penalty opens the door to a different way of possibly getting a good score: a lead-directing 1H call. "Lead-directing" not by agreement, but working in practice since partner will either expect you to have hearts or will realize as a matter of general bridge logic that you may just want a heart lead on a hand without hearts. In either case, he'll probably lead a heart. > Do you really think it is right to attempt to gain from your >infractions? Of course you will occasionally through rub-of-the-green >happenings, but this is not like that: you reach a position which would >not exist without an infraction and *then* you try this sort of >deception. Does it not leave a nasty taste in the mouth? This is the basic difference in our views: I see it as the occasional rub-of-the-green. If I clumsily drop the D10 in the table, making it a penalty card which I am forced to lead, and find that I've miraculously discovered partner's unexpected void, would it give you a nasty taste if I then played to give him another ruff, attempting to gain even more from my infraction? >John R. Mayne wrote: >>Something that appears to have been lost in this discussion: >> >>Isn't 1H *purely* lead-directing when partner is barred? It would not >>occur to me to bid any number of spades, or anything but 1H (or 2H), >>given the 6=3D0=3D2=3D5 trash I've got. > > I hope your partner alerts. Most people, when making a bid that is an >attempt to play there, bid their longest suit. If your partner knows >you do not, then he should alert and explain this. I also presume it is >on your CC. If it is an agreement, yes. I.e., if Richard some other time should open 1H opposite his silenced partner, the partner should certainly alert and explain that partnership experience (or reading BLML!) suggests that it might be a void. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>My solution is that L72A5 gives the _player_ the right (and thus >>IMO almost duty) to try to score well after the irregularity, >>while L72B1 under certain circumstances ("could have known...") >>gives the _TD_ the right to take away a good score _afterwards_. >> >>If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly >>to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to >>ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the >>player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. > > Bidding a void because partner is silenced by your infraction isn't >playing bridge well. It is just plain nasty. I believe quite strongly that in competitive bridge, actions should be either legal or not legal, and that any legal action that a player believes is good for his result should, by definition, be entirely appropriate. If a player asks "Director, may I ...", the answer should be yes or no (or, not too often, "I don't know), but not "yes, it is legal, but we dislike players who do it". Of course there are exceptions: certain events in which social considerations are more important than the laws. Most notably when you're playing against novices. I believe that Richard's 1H call is legal. If it is nasty, I believe that the culprit is not Richard, but the laws that allow it, and that the right procedure is to try to get the laws changed rather than to blame Richard. As I suggested elsewhere, an exception to L40A that forbids bids of suits with less than 4 cards opposite a silenced partner might be a good idea. I would have no objection at all to that. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:05:40 +0100, "David Burn" >> wrote: >>>I am not quite >>>certain that I agree with him. Where, for example, should one disclose >>>this on the convention card? > >>Nowhere. Convention cards are used to disclose partnership >>agreements, and this is not a partnership agreement. With a >>silenced partner, you are obviously bidding (almost) without >>partnership agreements, and the convention card is useless. The >>typical 3NT call with any fairly good hand in that situation is >>not described on any convention card I've seen. > > It is not obvious at all. Many people think it unethical. I think it >is immoral. If you and your partner choose to follow this action, >presumably because you think it ethical and moral, please do not call it >obvious. The average player makes bids that he is likely to play in >his longest suit. You play it as a lead-director: that's a convention, >requiring an alert and to be on the CC. A convention is a partnership agreement. What I'm saying is that it is obvious that we are bidding _without_ agreements, so where is the convention? Of course, if I have discussed the matter with partner previously and we have agreed that it might be a good idea to open on a void, then partner expects it and it is a partnership agreement, alertable, and possibly - depending on the local CC requirements - to be noted on the CC. > Suppose you are on lead to 3NT with five hearts, and your partner has >bid 1H when you are barred. Do you lead a heart? Presumably not, since >there is a likelihood he has a void. I lead a heart because I am not >playing your undisclosed convention: I expect my partner to have length >in the suit. Of course. So do I. But expectation is not the same as partnership agreement. >Please explain to me how this is not a partnership >agreement. 1H is a call, allowed by L40A, and as far as I know never discussed with partner. How can there be a partnership agreement without prior discussion or experience? If Richard and his partner had discussed or encountered this situation previously, then you are quite right. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 01:38:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:47 +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 BAA12016 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:38:39 +1000 Received: from ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.67]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980923154148.EDYX2535.fep4@ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:41:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:41:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360c13a1.6636162@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, 23 Sep 1998 00:39:42 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > While I still believe that L72B1 could be used in this specific case, >that is only because of the weakness of South's hand. The normal case >will be a psyche by someone whose hand is better, and the test of 'could >have known at the time of the infraction' fails. It still seems to me >that the player is attempting to win otherwise than by playing bridge, >and I would like to stop such a practice. However, I am not convinced >that it is illegal. > > I find some of Jesper's arguments very strange, and cannot remember >ever disagreeing with him so much before. Perhaps I am wrong! Considering your "I am not convinced that it is illegal", I think that the difference between us here is primarily my rather strong view that there is (or should be) no such thing as an action that is legal but reprehensible/not bridge/immoral. >However, >I cannot see how you can possibly equate lead-directing and random. >Incidentally, why is it so obvious to bid your void as a lead-director: >will it be a good lead against 3NT? Are you sure you are not being led >astray by knowledge of the hand? My judgment of 1H as good bridge may well be wrong and influenced by the result it gave on this hand. But even if 1H is bad bridge, that does not make it illegal. If 1H is bad bridge, it weakens the case for a L72B1 adjustment considerably, by the way. > I do not believe that the average player bids suits he does not have >when his partner is silenced. Neither do I. But there is no law that requires us to play like the average player. >If you and your partner know that you do >then there is no doubt this is a convention that needs to be disclosed. Correct. But as I understand it, the partner did not know, so there is no convention. >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Richard fully accepts he'll never get away with this coup again, he = knew >>that right from the time the original ruling was made. > > I worry about this. What we have been discussing here is whether what >was perpetrated was legal or not. If it was legal, why should it not be >repeated? It will be different the next time, because partner (if he is the same one or if he is any BLML reader) will be prepared. Repetition makes it a convention. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 01:51:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:51:04 +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 BAA12068 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:50:55 +1000 Received: from ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.67]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980923155406.EEQU2535.fep4@ip67.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:54:06 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:54:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360d1912.8029415@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> <3.0.1.32.19980921110314.00720ff4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980921110314.00720ff4@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 [I posted this Monday evening, but it seems to have been lost somewhere - apologies to anybody who gets it twice] On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:03:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:32 PM 9/20/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly >>to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to >>ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the >>player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. > >Why should it be *anyone's* obligation to "ensure" that a player who has >committed an infraction get a bad score? Nothing in the laws -- = opinions >of some to the contrary --suggests that he *must* get a bad score. Of course not. I took the liberty of using a somewhat imprecise shorthand for what you correctly describe as: >When we apply L72B1 (taken at face value), we must apply three rather >stringent tests: "could have known", "likely to damage", and "gained an >advantage". Any of these might not be met, and even when they are all = met >the offender might yet wind up with a fine score. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 02:48:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:48:41 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12340 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:48:35 +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 JAA15242 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809231651.JAA15242@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:48:16 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: > >Yes, for the NOS. For the OS, assign -A. No thoughts of equity for > >them. > > > >This seems to accord with L12C2's philosophy. The NOS gets what is > >favorable and likely (with probability calculations), and the OS > >gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. > > > It may or may not be more equitable, but it definitely does not accord with > L12C2, which instructs us to award the _most favorable_ likely result to > the NOS. In this case, that means A, not some weighted-average monstrosity > which generally has zero probability of occurring, absent the infraction. I assume by monstrosity you mean a non-real matchpoint assignment, rather than a bridge score. Sorry, that doesn't look monstrous to me. I would like Herman to clarify how such a matchpoint assignment would affect the rest of the field. Is it to be considered a "missing result," to be Neuberged like an artificial score, or a real result that gives a matchpoint to any pair who does better? > I thought we were just trying to decide how L12C3 should be applied, if at all. My opinion here does not mean I favor the adoption of L12C3. I'm just answering Herman's question with a rather conservative interpretation of L12C3. As an aside, the probability calculations should be biased strongly toward favoring the NOS when there is any doubt. Let's say a queen location has to be guessed, a 50-50 proposition. Make it at least 60-40 in favor of the NOS. We don't want NOs feeling they are being cheated by a law that is supposed to "do equity." Remember that L12C2 can result in the OS not getting the most favorable result if it has (using ACBL LC guideline for the sake of argument only) less than 1/3 probability. How about a compromise? Use L12C3 only when a favorable result is not likely enough to satisfy L12C2. This gives the NOS a better assignment than L12C2 would provide. It also solves the multiple low-probability-result problem better than Steve Willner's ingenious solution for those who do not have L12C3 available. I'm not changing my vote, however. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 03:21:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:21:01 +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 DAA12496 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 03:20:51 +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 KAA19683 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809231723.KAA19683@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:21:46 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > As for 'egregious' it depends what meaning it is > considered to have; if it can include actions that are not deemed > irrational, wild or gambling, then 'egregious' is not the test. > A result which comes only from a subsequent and unrelated > breach of the laws is not adjustable by reason of the prior infraction > and is subject to the relevant law. > A revoke, for example, is not a > considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational. > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ There seems to be a missing conclusion: However, the revoke penalty is incorporated into the assigned result if the assignment is for a contract in the same denomination. Are we to understand then, that a revoke, lead out of turn, play out of turn, or other mechanical error is not irrational and therefore does not affect the adjustability, but does affect the assignment, of a score for the NOS? Not arguing with that, just want to make sure. I would still like confirmation that if damage is a consequence of the infraction, then any subsequent additional self-inflicted damage from an irrational, wild, or gambling action by the NOS is disregarded when adjusting the score. If that has been confirmed, I missed it. I am preparing an article on this subject for our unit's newsletter and want to make sure I have everything right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 05:32:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:32:57 +1000 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12941 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:32:49 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-107.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [209.64.189.107]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA27163431 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36094E5B.F6ED905D@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:39:07 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced References: <01bde4b0$ffb3ea80$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that some feel that the standard to be applied when determining whether to adjust for 'could have known that an enforced pass could damage' is what the perpetrator knows/ what his skill level is. I do not feel that this is the proper standard. The proper standard should be what a capable generic player could 'foresee as likely in the circumstance'. When the standard to be applied is that of the perpetrator himself, are we not analyzing his ethics and attempting to make a finding on that basis? While there is room to make a finding upon a perpetrator's ethics it does not follow that that is the only test. Determination of ethics can be done in private. Determination of what a generic player could have known can be done at the table and if there are questions of ethics, they can be addressed later. I think that it would be less than wise to further expand the focus of the law as to the coup that got this thread started. I think that L23 deals with the potential damage adequately and that a player is entitled to take a view that might gain should there be no damage that requires adjustment. Personally, I see nothing improper about the 1H call, even if the same player should perform it again. However, I do not go so far as to say that it is always proper, because an investigation may reveal that it was improper; but in either case, the NOS is protected. It was a 'brilliant stroke', albeit dumb, and ought to be permitted because L23 protects the NOS. But, on the practical side, the call is not likely to win in the end because even if the desired end result is achieved [as actually happened], the penalty of the enforced pass was likely to damage and therefore eradicate the longshot that did come home. Roger Pewick Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >Well, at least the source of confusion is now clearly identified. I > >have said all along that the player did not know. I have never said > >that he could not have known (and I believe that this particular > >player could). If what Grattan (and Eric, and others) feel is that the > >Laws ought to require us to examine the actual state of mind of the > >actual player at the time of his infraction, then I do not say they > >are wrong. If they feel that the Laws at present require this...well, > >what I think of that is not difficult to deduce. When Senators have > >had their sport... > > > ++++ If the facts are such as to deny the possibility that he knew at > the time of the infraction then he could not have known. The time > lapse here, if accepted to be the case, severs the infraction from the > realisation that advantage could be gained out of it. If, on the other > hand, the possibility is contemplated that when he bid out of turn he > did maybe realise a subsequent action could turn it to his likely > advantage, then he could have known (which is not to say he *did* > know). My private thought is that David is close to this position in > his mind but not in his published judgement. > I do think it is subject matter on which to reflect and perhaps > advance the law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 08:00:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:00:43 +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 IAA13290 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:00:38 +1000 Received: from ip28.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.28]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980923220348.EZEF2535.fep4@ip28.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:03:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:03:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360a6da4.3813122@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, 22 Sep 1998 19:10:56 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>But did he pretend to have a heart suit? Opposite a silenced >>partner, there is no such thing as a normal bidding system. A 1H >>opening does not promise partner a certain number of hearts. It >>really means nothing more than "I'm willing to play 1H if the >>other three players now passes" and possibly "I want a heart >>lead". >> >>I would not call the 1H bid a psyche, because the concept of a >>psyche is meaningless opposite a silenced partner. > > I disagree strongly with this. Whatever you and your partner may >play, Jesper, I expect length when my partner bids and I am silenced, >and I believe I am in the vast majority. I've just now realized that what I wrote could very easily be misunderstood, and that you have probably done so, David. My words above were meant to apply only to the (most usual, I expect) case in which the partnership has no agreements based on discussion or experience about the "silenced partner" situation. In that situation, there is no bidding system, and interpretation of calls must be based on pure bridge logic, taking the special situation into account. And a lead-directing bid on a void seems to me to be a quite logical possibility in that situation. If the partnership has agreements about the "silenced partner" situation, the concepts of conventions and psyches certainly makes sense (corresponding to the extent of those agreements). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 10:31:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:31:09 +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 KAA13613 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:31:03 +1000 Received: from modem23.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.23] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zLzMK-0002zN-00; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:34:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:04:43 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Subsequent v consequent > Date: 23 September 1998 18:21 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > There seems to be a missing conclusion: +++ Yes, I think I got distracted in the middle of it. The aim was to be clear that a revoke subsequently is a separate issue and any damage consequent upon the revoke and its penalty is not redressed by reason of the original infraction. The revoker endures the consequence of his inattention. That applies in the case of any mechanical error in the subsequent action. +++ > > > I would still like confirmation that if damage is a consequence of > the infraction, then any subsequent additional self-inflicted > damage from an irrational, wild, or gambling action by the NOS is > disregarded when adjusting the score. If that has been confirmed, I > missed it. > +++ Yes. Of course the damage may be additional or it may be the only damage if the infraction is not adjudged to have caused consequent damage. What the committee did mostly was to stop the offender gaining in his score in a manner related to the infraction whether the advantage was consequent or subsequent. That and, in the best way it could think of, to put the marker down at the point where non-offender's action got to be too much and he just could not have his adjustment. The word 'egregious' is more elastic than 'irrational'. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 11:34:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:34:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13731 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:33:49 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zM0L5-00063w-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:37:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:40:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <360b1220.6251338@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >If this is a psyche, is 3NT on a balanced 15-count opposite a >silenced partner not also a psyche? 3NT is an attempt to make a contract. Bidding 2S on the example hand may be. Bidding 1H is not. They don't compare. >>John R. Mayne wrote: >>>Something that appears to have been lost in this discussion: >>> >>>Isn't 1H *purely* lead-directing when partner is barred? It would not >>>occur to me to bid any number of spades, or anything but 1H (or 2H), >>>given the 6=0=2=5 trash I've got. >> I hope your partner alerts. Most people, when making a bid that is an >>attempt to play there, bid their longest suit. If your partner knows >>you do not, then he should alert and explain this. I also presume it is >>on your CC. >If it is an agreement, yes. I.e., if Richard some other time >should open 1H opposite his silenced partner, the partner should >certainly alert and explain that partnership experience (or >reading BLML!) suggests that it might be a void. Forget Richard. If John and Jesper both consider that bidding a void here is obvious, then I consider they have an agreement if ever they play together - now. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 19:35:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:35:28 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14400 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:35:21 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21699 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:38:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36094189.8339422A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:44:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Equitable redress of MI (2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199809231651.JAA15242@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > > I assume by monstrosity you mean a non-real matchpoint assignment, > rather than a bridge score. Sorry, that doesn't look monstrous to > me. I would like Herman to clarify how such a matchpoint assignment > would affect the rest of the field. Is it to be considered a > "missing result," to be Neuberged like an artificial score, or a > real result that gives a matchpoint to any pair who does better? > > There are a number of ways this can be calculated, see my pages for full clarification. However, that is not the issue at this moment in time. Let's deal with the equity issue first. > I thought we were just trying to decide how L12C3 should be > applied, if at all. My opinion here does not mean I favor the > adoption of L12C3. I'm just answering Herman's question with a > rather conservative interpretation of L12C3. > Which is exactly what I was asking for. If we are to apply L12C3, we should decide on what is equitable. I feel, and so do many, that this is equitable. BTW, I agree with (I don't remember who's) suggestion to award -A to the OS. I even feel that is equitable, and in fact, Steve's (private) suggestion to me leads to a formula by which this turns out to be the result in this case. > As an aside, the probability calculations should be biased strongly > toward favoring the NOS when there is any doubt. Let's say a queen > location has to be guessed, a 50-50 proposition. Make it at least > 60-40 in favor of the NOS. We don't want NOs feeling they are being > cheated by a law that is supposed to "do equity." > I agree completely. Finding a Queen must have a 60% probability in these calculations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 19:35:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:35:41 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14408 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:35:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21724 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:38:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:38:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Rubber scoring X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is not the "duplicate"-bridge-laws mailing list, so I can ask about rubber bridge, can I ? How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 24 22:44:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:44:47 +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 ESMTP id WAA14758 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:44:35 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zMAo8-00023L-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:43:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rubber scoring In-Reply-To: <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >This is not the "duplicate"-bridge-laws mailing list, so I can ask about >rubber bridge, can I ? Why not? >How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? Getting along nicely, thankyou. :) Score per trick over six - as duplicate 81. SCORING TABLE TRICK SCORE Scored below the line by declarer's side, if contract is fulfilled: IF TRUMPS ARE C D H S For each trick over six, bid and made Undoubled 20 20 30 30 Doubled 40 40 60 60 Redoubled 80 80 120 120 AT A NOTRUMP CONTRACT Undoubled Doubled Redoubled For the first trick over six, bid and made 40 80 160 For each additional trick over six, bid and made 30 60 120 The first side to score 100 points below the line, in one or more hands, wins a GAME. When a game is won, both sides start without trick points towards the next game. The first side to win two games wins the RUBBER POINTS. PREMIUM SCORE Scored above the line by declarer's side: For winning the RUBBER, if opponents have won no game 700 For winning the RUBBER, if opponents have won one game 500 UNFINISHED RUBBER - for having won the only game 300 for having the only PART SCORE in an unfinished game 100 For making any DOUBLED CONTRACT 50 or for making any REDOUBLED CONTRACT 100 SLAMS NOT VULNERABLE VULNERABLE For making a SLAM Small Slam (12 tricks) bid and made 500 750 Grand Slam (all 13 tricks) bid and made 1000 1500 OVERTRICKS For each OVERTRICK (tricks made in excess of contract) NOT VULNERABLE VULNERABLE Undoubled Trick Value Trick Value Doubled 100 200 Redoubled 200 400 HONOURS Scored above the line by either side: For holding four of the five trump HONOURS (A,K,Q,J,10) in one hand 100 For holding all five trump HONOURS in one hand 150 For holding all four ACES in one hand at a notrump contract 150 UNDERTRICK PENALTIES Tricks by which declarer fails to fulfil the contract; scored above the line by declarer's opponents if the contract is not fulfilled: Not Vulnerable UNDOUBLED DOUBLED REDOUBLED For first undertrick 50 100 200 For each additional undertrick 50 200 400 Bonus for the fourth and each subsequent undertrick 0 100 200 Vulnerable UNDOUBLED DOUBLED REDOUBLED For first undertrick 100 200 400 For each additional undertrick 100 300 600 Posted in a hurry: apologies for any Tabs/poor formatting. off to Guernsey in 20 minutes! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 00:14:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:14:52 +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 AAA17026 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:14:35 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.2]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980924141711.EMUB7481@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:17:11 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:15:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde7c5$b879b740$02c6420c@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: Herman De Wael Subject: Rubber scoring >How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? > I have the 1993 version of the 'Laws of Contract Bridge'. Scoring table in unchanged from that used when I started keeping score in college, late '60s. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 02:37:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:37:03 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17727 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:36:55 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zMEQP-00005I-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:39:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:38:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Rubber scoring In-Reply-To: <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >This is not the "duplicate"-bridge-laws mailing list, so I can ask about >rubber bridge, can I ? > >How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? > As well as can be expected under the circumstances :) Latest changes 1993: Redoubled making is 100, only partscore is now 100, And: HonoUrs still count, Game & slam bonuses haven't changed, and the Non-vul doubled undertricks are the same as ours. PS Rick, I think your posting is incorrect. 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 Sep 25 02:37:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:37:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17726 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:36:55 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zMEQO-00004j-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:39:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:28:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Forget Richard. If John and Jesper both consider that bidding a void >here is obvious, then I consider they have an agreement if ever they >play together - now. > I'm not sure that I would have found the bid and furthermore I think that I would have rejected the idea, it looks like losing bridge. But if Jesper had done it to me - so what? I wouldn't have seen it before with this partner (or indeed anyone). I am uninvited from his party; not to lead his "suit" is clearly insulting, and that is what I would tell the opponents if asked. When given the opportunity to stop me they did something staggeringly stupid. Just for example playing last night I was psyched against twice, by 2 different very strong players. Yet within this group no-one bats an eyelid as the element of surprise is just the same for all players at the table. Outside it we seldom psyche, but when we so choose we are far more likely to be successful because we practice. Legislating high- variance near-zero-sum actions out of the game changes bridge beyond recognition, and sadly *that is just what happened*. When I play imps I never take prisoners. 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 Sep 25 03:37:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:37:39 +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 DAA17841 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:37:30 +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 KAA26458; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809241740.KAA26458@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: , Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:38:12 -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 Richard F Beye wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Subject: Rubber scoring > > > >How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? > > > I have the 1993 version of the 'Laws of Contract Bridge'. Scoring table in > unchanged from that used when I started keeping score in college, late '60s. > Except that in 1993 the fourth and succeeding non-vulnerable doubled/redoubled undertrick penalties were increased 50%, from 200/400 to 300/600, and the premium for making a redoubled contract went from 50 to a more logical 100. Those changes copied the scoring changes for duplicate bridge that came with the 1987/1990 edition of those Laws. Another 1993 change for rubber bridge was the increased premium for having the only partscore in an unfinished rubber, from 50 to 100. It is interesting that an informal survey by me of numerous stores has found only one rubber bridge score pad on sale that has the correct scoring table. Why is it that the National Laws Commission of the ACBL, the "Promulgating Body," has done such a poor job of promulgating the 1993 changes? None of the big bookstores carry either the duplicate or rubber bridge version of the Laws. What about the big internet bookstores, Amazon and Barnes & Noble? Amazon carries only an obsolete 1981 version of the rubber bridge laws, saying: "This title is out of print. Although it is no longer available from the publisher, we'll query our network of used bookstores for you and send an update within one to two weeks," while Barnes & Noble has nothing. So if you want to play rubber bridge and get a used copy of the rules through Amazon, you'll have the old scoring table. That's okay, because it will agree with your score pad! Amazon does have the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in stock, but it's the 1975 edition. That's two editions back, with the old scoring table. Aside to the ACBL: If you want to promote bridge, make the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the Laws of Contract Bridge, which you publish, available to at least Amazon and Barnes & Noble, if not to all bookstore chains. Give it to them free if you have to, and take the cost out of the Bridge America budget. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 04:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:58:44 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18116 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:58:35 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client272a.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.42]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA05368 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:01:00 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01bde7e3$c09aba00$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 am not an expert in this field but understood that Rubber had fallen in line with the Duplicate chane for Doubled Undertricks. 100/300/500/800. or 200/300/500/800. (as David said) But what about the INSULT? Duplicate has doubled and redoubled this, hasn't it? I do not think Rubber has caught up yet. Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Rubber scoring >In article <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>This is not the "duplicate"-bridge-laws mailing list, so I can ask about >>rubber bridge, can I ? >> >>How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? >> >As well as can be expected under the circumstances :) > >Latest changes 1993: Redoubled making is 100, only partscore is now 100, >And: HonoUrs still count, Game & slam bonuses haven't changed, and the >Non-vul doubled undertricks are the same as ours. > >PS Rick, I think your posting is incorrect. 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 Sep 25 05:38:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:38:40 +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 FAA18227 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:38:33 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.88]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980924194115.LWOD7481@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:41:15 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" , Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:38:27 -0500 Message-ID: <01bde7f2$e6aad860$e7c7420c@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 >From Rick Please forgive me. I did not look through the entire table before posting. -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 2:16 PM Subject: Re: Rubber scoring >I am not an expert in this field but understood that Rubber had fallen >in line with the Duplicate chane for Doubled Undertricks. >100/300/500/800. or 200/300/500/800. (as David said) But what about the >INSULT? Duplicate has doubled and redoubled this, hasn't it? I do not >think Rubber has caught up yet. >Anne >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 6:21 PM >Subject: Re: Rubber scoring > > >>In article <360A1312.E74186B1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael >> writes >>>This is not the "duplicate"-bridge-laws mailing list, so I can ask >about >>>rubber bridge, can I ? >>> >>>How is the official rubber scoring table nowadays ? >>> >>As well as can be expected under the circumstances :) >> >>Latest changes 1993: Redoubled making is 100, only partscore is now >100, >>And: HonoUrs still count, Game & slam bonuses haven't changed, and the >>Non-vul doubled undertricks are the same as ours. >> >>PS Rick, I think your posting is incorrect. 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 Sep 25 08:43:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:43:30 +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 IAA18887 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:43:24 +1000 Received: from ip114.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.114]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980924224634.HETD2535.fep4@ip114.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:46:34 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:46:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360acba2.1087904@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:40:18 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Forget Richard. If John and Jesper both consider that bidding a void >here is obvious, then I consider they have an agreement if ever they >play together - now. Yes. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 14:23:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:23:53 +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 OAA19370 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:23:45 +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 VAA27873 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809250426.VAA27873@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:23:52 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > I am not an expert in this field but understood that Rubber had fallen > in line with the Duplicate chane for Doubled Undertricks. > 100/300/500/800. or 200/300/500/800. (as David said) But what about the > INSULT? Duplicate has doubled and redoubled this, hasn't it? I do not > think Rubber has caught up yet. The insult gets 50 for a doubled contract made, 100 for a redoubled contract in both games. The value of a one-sided partscore in an unfinished rubber was changed from 50 to 100, which is more in line with the true value of a partscore. I remember some speculation when this change was made as to whether the value for a partscore in duplicate bridge ought also to be 100 instead of 50. It certainly would be logical. I'll leave it to someone else to determine whether the resultant scoring would make the game more or less interesting. A quick look says it would not make much difference, and it's surely desirable to make rubber and duplicate scoring as consistent as possible. A quick judgment says that players would not accept the change. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 14:58:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:58:45 +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 OAA19428 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:58:37 +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 WAA02177; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809250501.WAA02177@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Richard F Beye" , "Anne Jones" , "BLML" , Subject: Re: Rubber scoring Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:59:34 -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 Richard F. Beye wrote: > > >From Rick > Please forgive me. I did not look through the entire table before > posting. > You're not a true member of BLML until you've made an embarassing mistake. Welcome to the Club! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 25 23:25:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:25:05 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (root@t2.mscf.uky.edu [128.163.132.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA20476 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:24:57 +1000 Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu (kuch@t5.mscf.uky.edu [128.163.132.105]) by t2.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA01369 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA09773 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:28:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199809251328.JAA09773@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Rubber scoring To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:28:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199809250426.VAA27873@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Sep 24, 98 09:23:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > > > I am not an expert in this field but understood that Rubber had > fallen > > in line with the Duplicate chane for Doubled Undertricks. > > 100/300/500/800. or 200/300/500/800. (as David said) But what > about the > > INSULT? Duplicate has doubled and redoubled this, hasn't it? I do > not > > think Rubber has caught up yet. > > The insult gets 50 for a doubled contract made, 100 for a redoubled > contract in both games. > > The value of a one-sided partscore in an unfinished rubber was > changed from 50 to 100, which is more in line with the true value > of a partscore. > > I remember some speculation when this change was made as to whether > the value for a partscore in duplicate bridge ought also to be 100 > instead of 50. It certainly would be logical. I'll leave it to > someone else to determine whether the resultant scoring would make > the game more or less interesting. A quick look says it would not > make much difference, and it's surely desirable to make rubber and > duplicate scoring as consistent as possible. If the partscore were changed from 50 to 100, you will see people sacrificing while non-vulnerable with more pathetic hands. A major contract making two becomes 160, meaning that as long as you don't get doubled, you can now go off three tricks and still come out ahead in a matchpoint game. Do the powers that be want to encourage people to bid two spades against a sound two hearts when they think that they can make only five tricks? I'm sure that such bidding will get many customers...oops, I mean players upset. > A quick judgment says that players would not accept the change. Agreed--especially on this side of the pond. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 00:08:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:08:18 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20652 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:08:11 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h49.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA22501; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:11:20 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <360C3F4B.4746@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:11:39 -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: The definition of UI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_1.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_1.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Michael S. Dennis made nice post with clear determined position. Nevertheless - as it followed from all the posts - it seems to me that one is unable to establish full and non-self-contradicting definition of UI. Moreover - after such a definition will be agreed and established there may happens that quite creative player will create new kind of UI that will not be under that current of UI-definition. That's why it seems to me that more constructive position is to determine AI and only then to conclude that: UI is any information that is not AI. It will be a kind of "negative" definition: UI is not AI. But bridge is not the only kind of people activity where such a definition takes place: it happens very often.... So - AI for a player is information that is arisen from: - the essence of calls so partner's as opponents' (including their conventional meanings) - the essence of plays so partner's as opponents' (including their conventional meanings) - conclusions from the hand of that very player - a-priori information about probability of distribution (hands, suits, honours) - common bridge knowledge Also AI is information that is arisen from mannerisms of opponents I guess that I might. omit something sufficient - then the above text is opened to any possible corrections. The only thing I suggest is to establish the definition of AI - and "UI is anything but AI" Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 00:42:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:42:37 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22987 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:42:31 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA105384739; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:45:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA076634738; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:45:38 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:45:33 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Trick won.....but not Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it as if declarer won the trick. Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... Then defenders awake....and call the director. The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen such a miss.... =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 02:22:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:22:08 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (root@t2.mscf.uky.edu [128.163.132.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23402 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:22:00 +1000 Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu (kuch@t5.mscf.uky.edu [128.163.132.105]) by t2.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04935 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA13627 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:25:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199809251625.MAA13627@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Trick won.....but not To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:25:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA" at Sep 25, 98 10:45:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. > Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it > as if declarer won the trick. I assume that after North "took" the trick, North then led to the next trick. > Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... > Then defenders awake....and call the director. > The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... If my assumption is correct, North led out of turn on trick two. By L53A, East's playing to the trick is his acceptance of the lead out of turn. Just turn that first trick toward the defenders and play on. Perhaps some law can be applied if it can be determined that North "took" the trick deliberately to avoid being set by some switch that East needed to perform at trick two. This is the only reason I wouldn't rule as above. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 02:23:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:23:38 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23417 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:23:30 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10071 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:20:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809251620.LAA10071@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Judgement Call? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:20:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Small club game, Howell movement. Due to a half table, there is a sit-out. Pair 1 is playing NS. A pair comes and sits at their table. S checks the table card and asks "are you pair 5?" They say 'yes'. The first hand of the round is played. When N takes out the traveller to score the board, he says "you're pair 5, right?" and E says "Oh, no, we're pair 6". It turns out that: a) They are in fact pair 6. b) They have already played this board before [as NS]. c) They were supposed to sit out this round, but accidentally mis-read the table card and moved to the wrong table. d) The real pair 5 was finishing the last board of the previous round, then saw people playing at the table they were supposed to go to and assumed that they, too, were finishing the previous round and so didn't intervene. I know that the score of the hand just completed is negated, and Pair 1 and Pair 5 will both get an AAS per L15B. My question is _what_ AAS do they receive? N/S are supposed to verify boards and opponents--but S did _try_ to verify that. Do Pair 1, then receive A+? Should the real pair 5 also get A+? Should pair 6 get a PP? To make things worse, if Pair 1 gets A+ they win, but if they get anything less they finish second. Pairs 5 and 6, as it turns out, ended up out of the running. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 02:36:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:36:47 +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 CAA23452 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:36:38 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20463 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:34:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809251634.LAA20463@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Trick won.....but not To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:34:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk More experienced directors, please correct me if I'm wrong. > Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. > Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it > as if declarer won the trick. > > Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... > Then defenders awake....and call the director. > The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... > > Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen > such a miss.... I haven't either, but here goes: Since declarer did not win trick 1, his lead to trick 2 was out of turn. But L53A says that the LOOT has been accepted, so there is no penalty. The play of the cards stands. OTOH, just because the trick was mis-marked by both sides doesn't change the ownership of the trick. L65 and 66, et al, both allow tricks to be inspected to determine ownership. So the trick is scored as having been won by the defenders. [L72A2 would forbid declarer from claming it, anyway.] If it is believed that declarer deliberately played the H7 quickly in order to decieve, then a penalty is in order {under L72B2, at least, and perhaps under other laws}. But your story doesn't indicate that it appeared to be an intentional infraction. > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 03:09:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:09:06 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23515 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:09:00 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA12784; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:11:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.81) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012771; Fri Sep 25 12:11:30 1998 Received: by har-pa2-17.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDE885.BADA3940@har-pa2-17.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:09:29 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDE885.BADA3940@har-pa2-17.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA'" Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:37:12 -0400 Encoding: 37 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears that all that is necessary at this point is to count the trick as correctly having been won by East. Presumably when North led to trick two the LOOT was regularised by defender following to it. All of the subsequent tricks would (apparently) have been normal. Unless there would be some clear and compelling evidence of an attempt to swindle (which would call at least for a disciplinary penalty) I think no adjustment would be necessary here. (Perhaps a PP of the warning variety to both sides to pay closer attention wouldn't be out of line). What did I miss? (Don't have TFLB at hand today) Craig ---------- From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA[SMTP:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 10:45 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Trick won.....but not Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it as if declarer won the trick. Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... Then defenders awake....and call the director. The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen such a miss.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 03:15:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:15:29 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23537 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:15:16 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zMbVj-0003TP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:18:27 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:53:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Judgement Call? Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:53:55 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: SNIP > I know that the score of the hand just completed is negated, and > Pair 1 and Pair 5 will both get an AAS per L15B. My question is > _what_ > AAS do they receive? N/S are supposed to verify boards and > opponents--but > S did _try_ to verify that. Do Pair 1, then receive A+? Should the > real > pair 5 also get A+? Should pair 6 get a PP? > To make things worse, if Pair 1 gets A+ they win, but if they > get > anything less they finish second. Pairs 5 and 6, as it turns out, > ended > up out of the running. > > ########## The stationary pair (Usually N/S) are responsible for > ensuring correct procedure at the table and also for playing the > correct boards but they are not responsible for ensuring that they are > playing the correct opponents. The Laws quite clearly state that each > player is individually responsible for moving correctly. Hence, in > your example, N/S and the real pair 5 should both get Av+. > ########### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 03:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:15:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23541 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:15:23 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zMaYb-0004YB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:17:21 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:46:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:46:56 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. > Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it > as if declarer won the trick. > > > Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... > Then defenders awake....and call the director. > The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... > > Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen > such a miss.... > > > ########### IMO this is straight forwarded. The trick containing the > HQ was won by East who should be credited with it. There was a > condoned LOOT to the following trick so no further action needed there > and everything after that is OK . ########## From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 03:20:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:20:18 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23567 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:20:07 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA02728; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:23:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24337; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:23:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA12319; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:23:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:23:10 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809251723.SAA12319@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Subject: Re: Trick won.....but not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. > Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it > as if declarer won the trick. > > Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... > Then defenders awake....and call the director. > The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... > > Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen > such a miss.... Declarer did not win trick one, he lead out of turn at trick two but the opponents followed to this trick in rotation and did not object at the time so the lead out of turn has been accepted. So trick one belongs to the defence, and the lead out of turn is not subject to penalty. So far, so relatively easy. We certainly don't try and substitute the H7 for one of the HA or HK, or use the revoke laws, etc. However .... We turn, as always, to Law 72B1. Declarer has committed an infraction (LOOT) which could well have been to his advantage. If - the opponents were damaged by the infraction - the infraction was likely to damage the opponents - and declarer could have known that the infraction was likely to damage the opponents the director should award an adjusted score. In general, leading to trick two in 3NT is likely to be to declarers advantage and he often could have known so. The fact that declarer later played HAK suggests that there was an advantage of being on lead while still having a double heart stop (given that declarer will not not have won the first trick). Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 03:25:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:25:00 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23581 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:24:50 +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 KAA01009 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA05133; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:30:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:30:08 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199809251730.KAA05133@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Judgment Call? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <199809251620.LAA10071@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Judgement Call? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:20:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Status: R "Grant C. Sterling" wrote: | Small club game, Howell movement. Due to a half table, there is a |sit-out. | | Pair 1 is playing NS. A pair comes and sits at their table. S |checks the table card and asks "are you pair 5?" They say 'yes'. The |first hand of the round is played. When N takes out the traveller to |score the board, he says "you're pair 5, right?" and E says "Oh, no, we're |pair 6". | It turns out that: | a) They are in fact pair 6. | b) They have already played this board before [as NS]. | c) They were supposed to sit out this round, but accidentally |mis-read the table card and moved to the wrong table. | d) The real pair 5 was finishing the last board of the previous |round, then saw people playing at the table they were supposed to go to |and assumed that they, too, were finishing the previous round and so |didn't intervene. | | I know that the score of the hand just completed is negated, and |Pair 1 and Pair 5 will both get an AAS per L15B. My question is _what_ |AAS do they receive? N/S are supposed to verify boards and opponents--but |S did _try_ to verify that. Do Pair 1, then receive A+? Should the real |pair 5 also get A+? Should pair 6 get a PP? Pair 1 gets A+, Pair 5 gets A+, and Pair 6 can be assigned a PP at the director's discretion, although in practice, they never are. I like the idea that they should get 20% of a board PP to balance the checksum, but it doesn't matter in this case. | To make things worse, if Pair 1 gets A+ they win, but if they get |anything less they finish second. Pairs 5 and 6, as it turns out, ended |up out of the running. So what's wrong with that? Pair 1 didn't do anything wrong. They were prevented from playing a board due to someone else's actions. So it goes. They win. --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://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 06:48:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:48:39 +1000 Received: from thor.internauts.ca (thor.internauts.ca [205.236.185.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24033 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 06:48:33 +1000 Received: from local.none (dialppp30.internauts.ca [205.236.185.130]) by thor.internauts.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA12870 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980925204457.006ebb08@internauts.ca> X-Sender: ddobridge@internauts.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:44:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: BOB SCRUTON Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > A pp ? Surely you are kidding ! From: Craig Senior >To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , > "'Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA'" > >Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not >Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:37:12 -0400 >Encoding: 37 TEXT >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears that all that is necessary >at this point is to count the trick as correctly having been won by East. >Presumably when North led to trick two the LOOT was regularised by defender >following to it. All of the subsequent tricks would (apparently) have been >normal. Unless there would be some clear and compelling evidence of an >attempt to swindle (which would call at least for a disciplinary penalty) I >think no adjustment would be necessary here. (Perhaps a PP of the warning >variety to both sides to pay closer attention wouldn't be out of line). >What did I miss? (Don't have TFLB at hand today) > >Craig > >---------- >From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA[SMTP:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] >Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 10:45 AM >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Trick won.....but not > >Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. >Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it >as if declarer won the trick. > > >Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... >Then defenders awake....and call the director. >The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... > >Please help....may be I am too young but I have never seen >such a miss.... > > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 07:49:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:49:49 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24136 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:49:44 +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 OAA05853 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809252152.OAA05853@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Law Books Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:50:15 -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 I received an e-mail from Jim Miller, Director of Sales for the ACBL in regard to the publishing and selling of the Laws. Here's what he wrote: ### We sell the books we publish to retail outlets through National Book Network, a major wholesale book distributor. We do fairly well with our teaching series by Audrey Grant and the Encyclopedia of Bridge. None of our other books including the two lawbooks have had any demand. I have been told that the same was true when Crown Publishing produced and distributed our books - the lawbooks did not sell. Barnes and Noble has a book finding service for their customers where they will buy the book at retail (if necessary) to resell to the requesting customer. They call us about once a month for a book or books. I asked them if they ever received requests for the Laws of Contract Bridge and they said they had no record of any. There are a number of publishers of bridge materials, such as scorepads, who contact ACBL whenever they reprint or hear that changes may have occurred. I am not sure that ACBL has any obligation to initiate this contact, although a couple of years ago I did call Hallmark to let them know that their scorepads were wrong. No one called back to get the correct information. I let USPC know that their materials were wrong and I believe they will correct with the next printing. ### Not knowing anything about the promotion of books, I can't offer any further comment on this interesting matter. It does seem strange to me that the internet giants Amazon and Barnes & Noble, who pride themselves on having such a huge inventory, would not be interested in having the latest Laws for both duplicate and rubber bridge in stock. After all, the game is played by millions of people. I guess I do know something: You can't sit back and wait for "demand" to make sales; you have to push a product in order to sell it. The booksellers cannot be expected to promote books that have a very low profit potential. Someone else has to do it. Maybe someone on BLML has some ideas that Mr. Miller would be interested in. His e-mail address is jmiller@acbl.org Cam Cameron (specialevents@acbl.org) of the ACBL had this to add: ### ACBL and the Laws Commission have no control over outside publications. The rubber bridge tallys sold at the "Bridge Source" have the updated versions. The Laws of Contract (rubber) Bridge contain the updated versions. The ACBL "Bridge Source" is 1-800 264 2743. We have NO control over outside publishers. We have no control of a publisher in marketing old stock. When we are informed we will send a letter to the publisher informing them of the changes. Recently "Hoyle" was reprinted and the publisher contacted ACBL so it would contain the correct information. Rick Beye has given you good information. Thank you for keeping us informed. ### Hmm. I wonder what "good information" he is referring to, and whether that's what was given to Hoyle. I'll have to check out that new edition. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 12:09:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:09:41 +1000 Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA24591 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:09:34 +1000 Received: from worldonline.nl (vp228-64.worldonline.nl [195.241.228.64]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA04661; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 04:12:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <360C4DBD.5D7558A0@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 04:13:17 +0200 From: Henk B Pippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [nl] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law Books References: <199809252152.OAA05853@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree that there are millions of bridge players all over the world. IMO there are less then thousand of them who are interested in books concerning the Laws of Contract Bridge. So commercial selling will be a problem now and forever. Best Regards Henk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 15:18:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 15:18:14 +1000 Received: from fep3.post.tele.dk (fep3.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24791 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 15:18:07 +1000 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.79]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980921211852.QLF2535.fep4@ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:18:52 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:18:52 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <360cc242.3806994@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01bde368$5005c020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19980919132040.007aa320@cshore.com> <3.0.1.32.19980921110314.00720ff4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980921110314.00720ff4@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 Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:03:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:32 PM 9/20/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>If L72B1 applies, it is not the player's obligation to play badly >>to ensure that he gets a bad score; it is the TD's obligation to >>ensure it by an adjustment afterwards. It is also not the >>player's obligation to decide that L72B1 does apply. > >Why should it be *anyone's* obligation to "ensure" that a player who has >committed an infraction get a bad score? Nothing in the laws -- = opinions >of some to the contrary --suggests that he *must* get a bad score. Of course not. I took the liberty of using a somewhat imprecise shorthand for what you correctly describe as: >When we apply L72B1 (taken at face value), we must apply three rather >stringent tests: "could have known", "likely to damage", and "gained an >advantage". Any of these might not be met, and even when they are all = met >the offender might yet wind up with a fine score. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 16:55:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:55:22 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA25003 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:55:16 +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 XAA13763 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809260658.XAA13763@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Law Books Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:54:43 -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 Henk B. Pippel wrote: > > I agree that there are millions of bridge players all over the world. > IMO there are less then thousand of them who are interested in books > concerning the Laws of Contract Bridge. So commercial selling will be a > problem now and forever. Yes, and I think that may be because the Laws make for rather difficult reading, not that players are uninterested in the rules of the game. What we need is a simplified book that novices can pick up and read with instant understanding. When a tennis player joins the United States Tennis Association, he/she gets a free rule book along with membership. This is a thin booklet that provides the basic rules of tennis, enough to play the game as it is supposed to be played. Tennis tournament officials, chair umpires and others, must be familiar with more detailed rules of the game, which fill a book with hundreds of pages. In the recent U. S. Open Tennis Championship women's finals, Lindsay Davenport's hat came off during play, a rather rare occurrence. What's the ruling? Answer: The point is replayed. That rule is in the big book, but probably not in the small one. The same concept could be used for duplicate bridge. Many of the old bridge books I have, by Charles Goren, Ely Culbertson, Ernest Rovere, George Gooden, and others, include the Laws in the back. Seemed like a good idea. Maybe Goren's big book still includes the Laws, I haven't looked. They are in his 1963 edition. Modern writers don't seem interested in doing that. In the interest of promoting bridge, it might be a good idea for the ACBL to remove the copyright notice on its website Laws, and encourage downloading of them, as the WBF does. Are the Laws of Contract (rubber) Bridge viewable anywhere on the internet, can someone tell me? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 18:31:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:31:26 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA25220 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:31:18 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-215.access.net.il [192.116.204.215]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA09668 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:34:29 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360CA706.CD70DB01@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:34:14 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: peculiar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus and fellows I got today a NEW message from Jesper , dated 21.9....... During the last 4 days there were very few messages from blml in my e-mail box... Was something wrong on the net , on blml or just it was the real thing....... From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 21:50:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:50:54 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25492 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:50:47 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA27251 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:54:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law Books In-Reply-To: <360C4DBD.5D7558A0@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Henk B Pippel wrote: > I agree that there are millions of bridge players all over the world. > IMO there are less then thousand of them who are interested in books > concerning the Laws of Contract Bridge. So commercial selling will be a > problem now and forever. Yet I can find the equally arcane USCF Laws of Chess in a variety of local book stores, and the membership of the USCF is still under half of that of the ACBL. -- Richard Lighton |"...some word that teems with hidden meaning-- (lighton@idt.net)| like 'Basingstoke' ..." Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 26 23:19:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:19:51 +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 XAA25597 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:19:45 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA00023 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:22:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 14:21 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Declarer leads from hand 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: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I am very suspicious of Alcatraz coups, gasper coups etc. I need a lot > of persuading not to adjust in these cases. I'm with Anne. The "Gasper Coup", in the original, is an attempt to prevent the transmission of UI (by opponents) in a rubber game where a subsequent adjustment is, to say the least, unlikely. It is one of the few "Hog" practises that I had not previously regarded as unethical. What are the grounds for adjustment? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 01:32:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 01:32:03 +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 BAA28055 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 01:31:55 +1000 Received: from ip102.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.102]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980926153506.KDZC2535.fep4@ip102.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:35:06 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: peculiar Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:35:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3614095a.2007797@post12.tele.dk> References: <360CA706.CD70DB01@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <360CA706.CD70DB01@internet-zahav.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:34:14 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: >Markus and fellows > >I got today a NEW message from Jesper , dated 21.9....... >During the last 4 days there were very few messages from blml=20 >in my e-mail box... >Was something wrong on the net , on blml or just it was the real >thing....... The one from me seems to have been waiting almost 5 days to be delivered from my ISP to octavia.anu.edu.au. I suspect that to be a problem at my ISP, not in Australia - I have sent several other BLML messages without problems during those 5 days. As for BLML traffic in general: I have received 31 messages since the beginning of Thursday (UTC + 2 hours). I haven't noticed any threads with "holes", so there is probably no general problem. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 04:14:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:14:09 +1000 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28579 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:14:01 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.235] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zMyrs-00024Z-00; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 19:14:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Sideways to basics Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 19:17:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. (1) In this position: None None 32 32 2 None None None A KQ AK QJ A 1098 None None South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? (2) In this position: None None 32 32 None None J None A KQ AK QJ A 1098 None None South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 04:52:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:52:21 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28713 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:52:15 +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 OAA19260 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809261855.OAA23838@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> (Dburn@btinternet.com) Subject: Re: Sideways to basics Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the > EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > (1) In this position: > None > None > 32 > 32 > 2 None > None None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? This is clearly covered in the rules. If South could have reasonably been unaware that the S2 is out, he must lead the HT and lose a trick to it. At that point, it is irrational for him not to ruff the minor-suit return and take three tricks. There are two normal lines of play, one leading to three tricks and one leading to four, and South gets three. If he could not reasonably have been unaware of the trump, then he can take the SA and all the tricks. > (2) In this position: > None > None > 32 > 32 > None None > J None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? It is normal that South could play the SA first, after which he loses three tricks. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 04:54:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:54:19 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28727 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 04:54:13 +1000 From: robinswr@erols.com Received: from LOCALNAME (207-172-39-177.s177.tnt10.ann.erols.com [207.172.39.177]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14335 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <360D634E.57F2@erols.com> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:57:34 -0700 Reply-To: robinswr@erols.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sideways to basics References: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the > EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > > (1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > 2 None > None None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? If it is obvious that declarer knows that there is a trump out he could draw it but I can't think of in what layout that would be. He gets only three tricks. > > (2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > None None > J None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? Declarer gets only one trick. The only way he could claim is if he thought hs hearts were good. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 06:01:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:01:12 +1000 Received: from icarus.dur.ac.uk (icarus.dur.ac.uk [129.234.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA28813 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:01:06 +1000 Received: from mercury (mercury.dur.ac.uk [129.234.4.40]) by icarus.dur.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA05018 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:04:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:04:19 +0100 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:04:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: robin.michaels@vega.dur.ac.uk cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Sideways to basics In-Reply-To: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, David Burn wrote: > A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the > EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > > (1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > 2 None > None None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? It seems obvious to me that he should be credited with 3 tricks, losing just one ruff. > > (2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > None None > J None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? Here it seems similarly obvious that he should only make one trick. Obviously there is something I'm missing here, but I don't for the life of me know what it is. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 07:48:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:48:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28949 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:48:32 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zN2Fm-00007d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:51:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:50:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Gasper coup (was lead from declarer's hand) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> I am very suspicious of Alcatraz coups, gasper coups etc. I need a lot >> of persuading not to adjust in these cases. I'm with Anne. > >The "Gasper Coup", in the original, is an attempt to prevent the >transmission of UI (by opponents) in a rubber game where a subsequent >adjustment is, to say the least, unlikely. It is one of the few "Hog" >practises that I had not previously regarded as unethical. What are the >grounds for adjustment? > >Tim West-Meads > > This one is interesting. the mise en scene is that you hold Qxx over dummy's AKJxx. Playing rubber and collecting tricks; You know partner is about to lean forward to collect the trick when you win the Queen, as he "knows" you have it. You want to hold up to kill an entry and are about to duck. But partner will lean forward anyway and then look surprised. Your mission is to stop partner leaning forward and giving the show away. The gasper coup involves holding your cigarette packet across the table as you play to the card so that partner will lean back and say "you know I don't smoke". By your break in tempo partner will now not try to collect the trick and declarer will repeat the losing finesse. I think L73D2 applies: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or gesture ... or by the manner in which the call or play is made." Admittedly this a rubber bridge scenario, relating to the collection of tricks, but the coup itself could be used whenever you don't want partner to fall off his chair in surprise, thereby giving information about your own hand to declarer -- 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 Sep 27 07:54:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:54:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28970 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:54:07 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zN2L8-0004V7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:57:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:56:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics In-Reply-To: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the >EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > >(1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >2 None >None None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > three, wtp? >(2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >None None >J None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > none, wtp? L70A ... as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. ... L70D ... if there is an alternative normal(20) line of play that would be less successful. Don't now tell me it's one of my rulings please Dave :) > > -- 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 Sep 27 08:21:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 08:21:12 +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 IAA29032 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 08:21:06 +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 SAA23009 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809262224.SAA27505@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: Gasper coup (was lead from declarer's hand) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: > This one is interesting. the mise en scene is that you hold Qxx over > dummy's AKJxx. Playing rubber and collecting tricks; You know partner is > about to lean forward to collect the trick when you win the Queen, as he > "knows" you have it. You want to hold up to kill an entry and are about > to duck. But partner will lean forward anyway and then look surprised. > Your mission is to stop partner leaning forward and giving the show > away. That's not how the Hog used it; he wanted to stop one opponent from giving the show away to the other. He held something like AQJTx in dummy, Kxx in hand, and needed to cash three tricks before drawing trumps. He led to the queen, then cashed the ace and the jack, playing East for a small doubleton, with which he wouldn't ruff because he expected West to have the king. If West stretched to grap the trick on the Hog's play of the queen, the cat was out of the bag. > The gasper coup involves holding your cigarette packet across the table > as you play to the card so that partner will lean back and say "you know > I don't smoke". By your break in tempo partner will now not try to > collect the trick and declarer will repeat the losing finesse. As South, the Hog did this on West, preventing him from transmitting UI to East. This was an attempt to counter UI. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 09:38:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:38:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29157 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:38:36 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zN3yI-0006Sr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:41:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:40:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Gasper coup (was lead from declarer's hand) In-Reply-To: <199809262224.SAA27505@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199809262224.SAA27505@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes >MadDog writes: > >> This one is interesting. the mise en scene is that you hold Qxx over >> dummy's AKJxx. Playing rubber and collecting tricks; You know partner is >> about to lean forward to collect the trick when you win the Queen, as he >> "knows" you have it. You want to hold up to kill an entry and are about >> to duck. But partner will lean forward anyway and then look surprised. > >> Your mission is to stop partner leaning forward and giving the show >> away. > >That's not how the Hog used it; he wanted to stop one opponent from >giving the show away to the other. He held something like AQJTx in dummy, >Kxx in hand, and needed to cash three tricks before drawing trumps. >He led to the queen, then cashed the ace and the jack, playing East for >a small doubleton, with which he wouldn't ruff because he expected West >to have the king. If West stretched to grap the trick on >the Hog's play of the queen, the cat was out of the bag. > second public grovel, aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh :) -- 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 Sep 27 09:40:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:40:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29171 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:40:37 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zN40F-0006WS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:43:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:42:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes snip > >>(2) In this position: >> >> None >> None >> 32 >> 32 >>None None >>J None >>A KQ >>AK QJ >> A >> 1098 >> None >> None >> >>South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >>no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? >> >none, wtp? typo should read ONE, sorry. public grovel. :(( -- 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 Sep 27 11:09:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 11:09:24 +1000 Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29305 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 11:09:18 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.83] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zN5Mn-0001TZ-00; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:11:14 +0100 Message-ID: <007a01bde9b3$efa18640$6a3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "John Probst" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:12:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>(2) In this position: >> >> None >> None >> 32 >> 32 >>None None >>J None >>A KQ >>AK QJ >> A >> 1098 >> None >> None >> >>South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >>no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? >> >none, wtp? Not one of yours - a purely hypothetical situation. But your problems may start when the rest of the list wonders how you can deny a trick to the man with the ace of trumps. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 11:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 11:32:28 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29363 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 11:32:20 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.83] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zN5ho-0002VL-00; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <008701bde9b7$28e49d40$6a3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Gasper coup (was lead from declarer's hand) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:35:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Lest this should continue beyond reasonable limits: 9873 J AKQ AQ874 KJ10 Q4 10987 5432 432 108765 J102 93 A652 AKQ6 J9 K65 HH South, RR North, Papa East, Nondescript Performer West. The Hog opened 1D, the routine bid in the weaker minor on the way to three no trumps. But RR forced with 3C, and bid 4D over 3NT. The Hog tried 4H, and was startled to hear 4S. Was that a suit or a void? Reluctantly, the Hog retreated to 5C. That meant, of course, that partner would play the hand, but even that seemed better than having to make a lot of diamonds... The Rabbit, knowing that the Hog had the missing aces and the CK, proceeded to bid seven diamonds, which became the final contract. West led a heart, the Hog won, crossed to SA and played three top hearts. Now, if only he were allowed to collect peacefully three club tricks, there might be a chance. He could pretend to finesse, but then West would probably try to grab the trick, and that would give the show away. Somewhere, he had read about the right move - the Gasper Coup, attributed to S J Simon. Leading a small club to dummy with his right hand, he simultaneously thrust a packet of cigarettes at West, immobilising him for the duration of the trick. Before West could say "You know perfectly well that I don't smoke", the Hog had brought off his "finesse". The CA followed, then another. Assuming from the play that West had the king, Papa did not ruff... This paraphrase from the world's greatest bridge book, "Bridge in the Menagerie" by the late and much lamented Victor Mollo, may help to atone for my wearisome contributions to the thread on psyching when partner is silenced. At any rate, it is the definitive version, so with a bit of luck this thread should not continue for as long as the other one did. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 27 23:23:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:23:11 +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 XAA00202 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:23:03 +1000 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6 [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA19222 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA00743; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809271326.JAA00743@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sideways to basics Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the >EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > >(1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >2 None >None None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? 3 tricks >(2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >None None >J None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > 1 trick I expect that I will be in the minority. :-) In reality, would it not be up to the director to determine the facts of each case, and not apply some hard and fast rule? In the first case, if declarer can demonstrate that there was an obvious trump out (and the burden of proof is on the declarer) then it would be correct to award 4 tricks. In the second case, declarer would have to demonstrate that knocking out the HJ was the line of play intended (and again the burden of proof is on the declarer) in order to get 3 tricks. Since delarer claimed 4, however, which implies that he missed the HJ, declarer would have a hard row to hoe to avoid being given 1. :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 08:06:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:06:00 +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 IAA04045 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:05:54 +1000 Received: from modem43.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.171] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zNP09-0006sU-00; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:09:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "John Probst" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 11:15:00 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: David Burn > To: John Probst > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Sideways to basics > Date: 27 September 1998 02:12> > Not one of yours - a purely hypothetical situation. But your problems > may start when the rest of the list wonders how you can deny a trick > to the man with the ace of trumps. > +++ Ah, yes! I know this one - my Scandinavian friends write to me once in a while about it. With the Probst finger on the button we might yet have a nuclear war, by accident as always. ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 08:29:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:29:10 +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 IAA04086 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:29:04 +1000 Received: from modem8.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.136] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zNPMY-0005TJ-00; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:32:18 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:30:03 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: David Burn > >>(2) In this position: > >> > >> None > >> None > >> 32 > >> 32 > >>None None > >>J None > >>A KQ > >>AK QJ > >> A > >> 1098 > >> None > >> None > >> > >>South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest > making > >>no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? +++ If declarer is not sure whether there is an opposing trump out he will play the Ace before he plays the Hearts. If he knows for certain that there is no trump in defenders' hands the natural play is on Hearts; there is a right way and a wrong way to play each endgame, to cater for accidents. I wonder if the advanced player might be allowed the rationality of guarding against the unexpected? It hinges on the way in which you think Law 70D applies; is the trump first an irrational play for a good player? This is a typical question of bridge judgement for an AC. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 16:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:41:53 +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 QAA04785 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:41:40 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h11.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id KAA28347; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:44:51 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <360FCB2B.64BE@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:45:15 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sideways to basics References: <007a01bde9b3$efa18640$6a3463c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Burn wrote: > Not one of yours - a purely hypothetical situation. But your problems > may start when the rest of the list wonders how you can deny a trick > to the man with the ace of trumps. And after one would answer on this question - there would be questions about KQ of trumps, then - QJ10, then - J1098 etc. The way to nowhere - if I dare to have an opinion. That's why the answer should be common to any cases and there is the Law (L64) that describes how one should transfer tricks to opponents. Furthermore, not so "sure" tricks (for example - J9xx of trumps at RHO's hand with 10x at dummy) may be considered as not winning by TD/AC decision under L70. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 18:23:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:23:14 +1000 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA04965 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:23:00 +1000 Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 0zNYbN-0004nF-00; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:24:13 +0200 Message-ID: <360F4919.A11086EB@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:30:22 +0200 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law Books References: <199809260658.XAA13763@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > Are the Laws of Contract (rubber) Bridge viewable anywhere on the > internet, can someone tell me? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Hi Marv, look at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/index.html Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 22:16:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:16:43 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05358 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:16:36 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19067 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928082241.006ef1c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:22:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law Books In-Reply-To: <360C4DBD.5D7558A0@worldonline.nl> References: <199809252152.OAA05853@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:13 AM 9/26/98 +0200, Henk wrote: >I agree that there are millions of bridge players all over the world. >IMO there are less then thousand of them who are interested in books >concerning the Laws of Contract Bridge. So commercial selling will be a >problem now and forever. >Best Regards Henk In the ACBL, the serious players who would like to own a copy of the laws probably already do; they are included in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. The FLB is pretty much purchased only by TDs, who need a version they can carry in a pocket or purse. Right now, of course, the laws in the Encyclopedia are out of date, but that will change when the next edition comes out. 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 Sep 28 22:24:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:24:19 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05395 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:24:13 +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 IAA19255 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928083019.006ecdc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:30:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Sideways to basics In-Reply-To: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:17 PM 9/26/98 +0100, David wrote: >A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the >EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > >(1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >2 None >None None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? Three. >(2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >None None >J None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? One. Anything else, it seems to me, would be a radical departure from the way L70 is now generally interpreted. 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 Sep 28 22:31:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:31:22 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05423 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:31:16 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10741; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10713; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14762; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:34:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199809281234.NAA14762@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de Subject: Re: Law Books Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > Are the Laws of Contract (rubber) Bridge viewable anywhere on the > > internet, can someone tell me? > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Hi Marv, > > look at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/index.html > > Ralf As far as I can see, there are only the duplicate bridge laws, Mr French was asking for the rubber bridge laws. They are different and were last revised in 1993 (so "laws97e" is not right). Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 28 22:59:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:59:41 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05482 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:59:34 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmhd.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.45]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07136 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980928090104.0073cd70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:01:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Sideways to basics In-Reply-To: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:17 PM 9/26/98 +0100, David B wrote: >A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the >EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > >(1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >2 None >None None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > >(2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 >None None >J None >A KQ >AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > >South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making >no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > Three, of course. WTP? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 00:16:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:16:02 +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 AAA07969 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:15:56 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA27520; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:18:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.71) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027487; Mon Sep 28 09:18:03 1998 Received: by har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDEAC8.F474DC60@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:15:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDEAC8.F474DC60@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'BOB SCRUTON'" Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:04:31 -0400 Encoding: 63 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, not in the least. I AM referring to a PPw, not a PPf. Which director among you would not urge all parties to be more careful in future lest the consequences of their inattention be most costly to them or seriously disrupt the game? Unless this hand was played late in an Oktoberfest, they were rather lax in knowing what was going on at trick one...a friendly reprimand is certainly reasonable...and that's all a PPw amounts to in my understanding. It has the additional benefit of making it easier to deal with these pairs at a later time if their carelessness makes the wheels fall off or generally bollixes things up. They've been warned. :-)) Craig ---------- From: BOB SCRUTON[SMTP:ddobridge@internauts.ca] Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 4:44 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not > A pp ? Surely you are kidding ! From: Craig Senior >To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , > "'Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA'" > >Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not >Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:37:12 -0400 >Encoding: 37 TEXT >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears that all that is necessary >at this point is to count the trick as correctly having been won by East. >Presumably when North led to trick two the LOOT was regularised by defender >following to it. All of the subsequent tricks would (apparently) have been >normal. Unless there would be some clear and compelling evidence of an >attempt to swindle (which would call at least for a disciplinary penalty) I >think no adjustment would be necessary here. (Perhaps a PP of the warning >variety to both sides to pay closer attention wouldn't be out of line). >What did I miss? (Don't have TFLB at hand today) > >Craig > >---------- >From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA[SMTP:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] >Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 10:45 AM >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Trick won.....but not > >Against 3NT, East lead HQ. North as declarer "takes" this trick. >Every player, including dummy, turns his card and places it >as if declarer won the trick. > > >Four or five tricks later, declarer plays HA and HK..... >Then defenders awake....and call the director. >The declarer's card played to the first trick was H7...... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 00:31:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:31:10 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08026 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:31:04 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA05301 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA16408 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:34:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809281434.KAA16408@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Judgment Call? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Goldsmith) [and many others similarly] > Pair 1 gets A+, Pair 5 gets A+, and Pair 6 can > be assigned a PP at the director's discretion, > although in practice, they never are. I like > the idea that they should get 20% of a board > PP to balance the checksum, but it doesn't > matter in this case. If you wanted to be really hard-nosed, you could declare pair 5 (the ones who finished the previous round late) "partially at fault" (L12C1) and give them average instead of average-plus. I'd only do that if they were chronically late and perhaps not even then. I would not let the decision about pair 5 affect the size of a PP for pair 6. [I have a couple of long messages to write about ongoing topics, but it will be a few days before I can get to those.] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 00:40:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:40:33 +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 AAA08052 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:40:27 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13756 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <360FAE3E.A9398745@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:41:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: BLML - ss Finland Challenge 1998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At this moment, I have (nearly) confirmed entries from : North America : -USA : --MO, Kimberling City --NC, Southern Pines --NY, Spring Valley Europe : -Belgium --Antwerpen -Netherlands --Amsterdam --Bussum -Czech Republic --Ceske Budejovice --Nove Mesto nad Metuji --Praha -Israel --Haifa -Russia --Ufa -UK --England, Bristol --Wales, Penarth Oceania -Australia --NSW, Sydney That's 3 continents, 8 countries, 15 centers And a lot more to come, I'm certain. Why don't you join us as well ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 04:06:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:06:07 +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 EAA08761 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:05:57 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-139.access.net.il [192.116.198.139]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA28717; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:08:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <360FD0AB.24AB7B07@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:08:43 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Sideways to basics References: <000101bde979$edcd20c0$eb2f63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well - the answers bellow are without any inspection of the facts , or any other information a TD & an AC should try to get (like ... I pulled 3 rounds of trumps and now I pull the last , or ..etc.) Case one - all 4 tricks -> IMO the declarer knows what's going on. Case two - one only , because he doesn't know exactly what the remaining cards are......... I repeat - the answers when no other information available.. Dany David Burn wrote: > > A question that is (incredibly, to my mind) about to be debated by the > EBU Laws and Ethics Committee prompts me to ask a couple of questions. > > (1) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > 2 None > None None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? > > (2) In this position: > > None > None > 32 > 32 > None None > J None > A KQ > AK QJ > A > 1098 > None > None > > South, on lead as declarer in a spade contract, claims the rest making > no statement. With how many tricks should he be credited? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 13:00:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:00:55 +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 NAA10952 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:00:50 +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 UAA23272; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199809290303.UAA23272@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Law Books Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:00:10 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: Henk wrote: > > >I agree that there are millions of bridge players all over the world. > >IMO there are less then thousand of them who are interested in books > >concerning the Laws of Contract Bridge. So commercial selling will be a > >problem now and forever. > >Best Regards Henk > > In the ACBL, the serious players who would like to own a copy of the laws > probably already do; they are included in the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia > of Bridge. The FLB is pretty much purchased only by TDs, who need a > version they can carry in a pocket or purse. Right now, of course, the > laws in the Encyclopedia are out of date, but that will change when the > next edition comes out. > Good for Eric, thinking to look in the Encyclopedia. The rubber bridge laws in it are 1993, and so are up to date, while the duplicate laws are of course obsolete. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge come in both hardcover and paperback form, while the Laws of Contract (rubber) Bridge come only in paperback, I believe. All available from the ACBL. Are the rubber bridge laws going to be overhauled in 2003, does anyone have a guess? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 19:59:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:59:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA11725 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:59:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zNwbh-0000Kl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:02:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:47:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Judgement Call? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >> ########## The stationary pair (Usually N/S) are responsible for >> ensuring correct procedure at the table and also for playing the >> correct boards but they are not responsible for ensuring that they are >> playing the correct opponents. It is not really relevant to this thread but the above is not quite correct. First, it is only a primary responsibility, which means that if they do something stupid [like playing a board arrow-switched] you would be unlikely to fine one side and not the other. Second, this was a Howell, so there probably was no stationary pair. ---- ::::: ---- Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Pair 1 gets A+, Pair 5 gets A+, and Pair 6 can >be assigned a PP at the director's discretion, >although in practice, they never are. I like >the idea that they should get 20% of a board >PP to balance the checksum, but it doesn't >matter in this case. Never? The principle that we espouse here is that fines are for repeated offences, or at a high level. I would hope that this pair would be fined if they regularly do this. If this is the first time, there is no need to fine. ---- ::::: ---- Grant C. Sterling wrote: > To make things worse, if Pair 1 gets A+ they win, but if they get >anything less they finish second. Pairs 5 and 6, as it turns out, ended >up out of the running. Pair 1 might have got a top on the board and won - but that chance was taken away from them. The lawmakers have given you a procedure to allow for it so you should be thankful and apply it. No judgement call is involved where pair 1 was concerned. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 19:59:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:59:08 +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 ESMTP id TAA11721 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:58:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zNwbh-0000Kk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:02:10 +0000 Message-ID: <38RgYCAmdKE2EwFB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:24:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >David Stevenson writes >> Forget Richard. If John and Jesper both consider that bidding a void >>here is obvious, then I consider they have an agreement if ever they >>play together - now. >I'm not sure that I would have found the bid and furthermore I think >that I would have rejected the idea, it looks like losing bridge. But if >Jesper had done it to me - so what? I wouldn't have seen it before with >this partner (or indeed anyone). I am uninvited from his party; not to >lead his "suit" is clearly insulting, and that is what I would tell the >opponents if asked. When given the opportunity to stop me they did >something staggeringly stupid. I am sure that you are looking at the hand and not the principle. Try to think about the generality. Let me give you an example auction. Qx Qxxx Qxxx Qxx Partner opens the multi out of turn. Later he bids 1H with you silenced and the opponents reach 3NT. Oppo bans a heart lead. What do you lead? By the logic espoused by yourself and Jesper and others in this thread you find it acceptable to lead a spade expecting a reasonable possibility that partner's suit will be spades, yet you do not think you need to tell the oppos this. Are you really comfortable with this? >Just for example playing last night I was psyched against twice, by 2 >different very strong players. Yet within this group no-one bats an >eyelid as the element of surprise is just the same for all players at >the table. Outside it we seldom psyche, but when we so choose we are far >more likely to be successful because we practice. Legislating high- >variance near-zero-sum actions out of the game changes bridge beyond >recognition, and sadly *that is just what happened*. This has absolutely nothing to do with it. We are talking about deliberately misinforming oppos and seeking to gain from infractions. >When I play imps I never take prisoners. I don't believe you would actually do this at the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 29 20:33:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:33:43 +1000 Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA11812 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:33:10 +1000 Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28731 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:38:02 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <004401bdeb94$4ddf2a00$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: Trick won.....but not Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:31:22 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id NAA28731 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:38:58 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.45.10]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980929114145.JEEC3105@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:41:45 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bdeb9d$cb1e5f00$0a2d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:39:04 -0400 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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I got this question earlier today. In my opinion, the laws do not require dummy at the end of the hand to call for the director. Active ethics does require it. Any opinioins? >Dear jay, > I have a serious question and don't know who to ask here so I am going >to ask you. If I am dummy, and my partner does not play a club on the >eighth trick but has one as her thirteenth card and no one at the table >notices but me (the dummy), what am I supposed to do? I am limited in >what I can say (other than "No clubs, partner?" at trick eight). A head >shake I took for the truth. Then when I saw her thirteenth card, I did >not speak up but feel very guilty about it...she may have made an honest >mistake but we should not benefit from it. What is the rule? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 00:11:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:11:58 +1000 Received: from hd1.usuhs.mil ([131.158.107.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13185 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:11:38 +1000 Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil by hd1.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 3.00) id 00012857; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:09:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199809291409.00012857@hd1.usuhs.mil> Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:09:05 -0400 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" Subject: RE: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:08:56 -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 V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <001f01bdeb9d$cb1e5f00$0a2d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> 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 JApfelbaum > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 7:39 AM > To: BLML Group > Subject: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand > > > I got this question earlier today. In my opinion, the laws do not require > dummy at the end of the hand to call for the director. Active ethics does > require it. > > Any opinioins? > > >Dear jay, > > I have a serious question and don't know who to ask here so I am going > >to ask you. If I am dummy, and my partner does not play a club on the > >eighth trick but has one as her thirteenth card and no one at the table > >notices but me (the dummy), what am I supposed to do? I am limited in > >what I can say (other than "No clubs, partner?" at trick eight). A head > >shake I took for the truth. Then when I saw her thirteenth card, I did > >not speak up but feel very guilty about it...she may have made an honest > >mistake but we should not benefit from it. What is the rule? The rule is: 72.B 3. Inadvertent Infraction There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation). The Laws make it very clear that you need feel no guilt about failing to report your partner's infraction. I am bothered when "Active Ethics" is cited as a reaason for taking action that is not part of the Laws of Bridge, (and sometimes in opposition to the Laws, although not in this case). IMO, "Active ethics" should be a strict adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Laws. Here, the Laws do not require you to turn yourself in for an inadvertent infraction. The intent of the Law is very clear, and IMO it is not a violation of "Active Ethics" to abide by that intent. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 00:36:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:36:03 +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 AAA14886 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:35:55 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.127]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980929143841.KUWR23017@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:38:41 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:36:04 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdebb6$7cd5bf00$21c6420c@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 So Hirsch, what about 72 B4 - first clause. -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis To: BLML Group Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 9:24 AM Subject: RE: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of JApfelbaum >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 7:39 AM >> To: BLML Group >> Subject: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand >> >> >> I got this question earlier today. In my opinion, the laws do not require >> dummy at the end of the hand to call for the director. Active ethics does >> require it. >> >> Any opinioins? >> >> >Dear jay, >> > I have a serious question and don't know who to ask here so I am going >> >to ask you. If I am dummy, and my partner does not play a club on the >> >eighth trick but has one as her thirteenth card and no one at the table >> >notices but me (the dummy), what am I supposed to do? I am limited in >> >what I can say (other than "No clubs, partner?" at trick eight). A head >> >shake I took for the truth. Then when I saw her thirteenth card, I did >> >not speak up but feel very guilty about it...she may have made an honest >> >mistake but we should not benefit from it. What is the rule? > >The rule is: > >72.B >3. Inadvertent Infraction >There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law >committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken >explanation). > >The Laws make it very clear that you need feel no guilt about failing to >report your partner's infraction. I am bothered when "Active Ethics" is >cited as a reaason for taking action that is not part of the Laws of Bridge, >(and sometimes in opposition to the Laws, although not in this case). IMO, >"Active ethics" should be a strict adherence to the letter and the spirit of >the Laws. Here, the Laws do not require you to turn yourself in for an >inadvertent infraction. The intent of the Law is very clear, and IMO it is >not a violation of "Active Ethics" to abide by that intent. > >Hirsch > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 01:18:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:18:46 +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 BAA14958 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:18:36 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27098 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:16:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199809291516.KAA27098@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:16:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I got this question earlier today. In my opinion, the laws do not require > dummy at the end of the hand to call for the director. Active ethics does > require it. > > Any opinioins? > > >Dear jay, > > I have a serious question and don't know who to ask here so I am going > >to ask you. If I am dummy, and my partner does not play a club on the > >eighth trick but has one as her thirteenth card and no one at the table > >notices but me (the dummy), what am I supposed to do? I am limited in > >what I can say (other than "No clubs, partner?" at trick eight). A head > >shake I took for the truth. Then when I saw her thirteenth card, I did > >not speak up but feel very guilty about it...she may have made an honest > >mistake but we should not benefit from it. What is the rule? > > Does this mean that the person actually asked partner "No clubs?" at trick 8, and partner shook his head? Ordinarily, I would most definately agree that the Laws do not require a Director call. Perhaps Active Ethics does [I, personally, would point out the infraction]. But if partner was specifically asked if he had clubs and he replied [by gesture] that he did not, then I would most definately call the director. Such a mistake may very well have been honest, but is clearly deceptive to the opponents. It's hard enough to look for revokes by declarer without having the additional complication of having declarer specifically deny at the time that he is revoking. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 01:47:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:47:24 +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 BAA15046 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:47:16 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.95]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980929155002.MBOF23017@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:50:02 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "JApfelbaum" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:47:49 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdebc0$82a76aa0$21c6420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay, unfortunately 'Active Ethics' is not a part of the laws. -----Original Message----- From: JApfelbaum >I got this question earlier today. In my opinion, the laws do not require >dummy at the end of the hand to call for the director. Active ethics does >require it. > >Any opinioins? > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 01:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:50:09 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA15068 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:50:02 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.95]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980929155249.MCUL23017@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:52:49 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "B-L-M-L" Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:50:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdebc0$e4f74360$21c6420c@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 Please excuse me on below. I did not mean to include the editorial 'unfortunately' to impart any position on Jay's question. Rick >Jay, unfortunately 'Active Ethics' is not a part of the laws. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 03:12:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:12:31 +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 ESMTP id DAA15444 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:12:25 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zO3ND-0007kb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:15:40 +0000 Message-ID: <3KeAl5AZTME2Ewmc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:30:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Trick won.....but not In-Reply-To: <004401bdeb94$4ddf2a00$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >=85 >Dear colleagues! >I would like to attract your attention to another aspect of the situation. >It=92s not possible that both defenders call TD simultaneously. In fact, o= ne >has called him early then another. >WHAT ABOUT UI FOR OTHER DEFENDER? >I think, that TD must explain other defender, that the following >information is UI: >-Acceptance of the lead out of turn was performed occasionally. >-Defender during first 4 tricks didn=92t know how many tricks they won. >-Defender didn=92t know which card was playing in first trick. >More over, TD must explain L66=D1 and, as to me, TD should not make the >specific instruction to verify a claim of a revoke. Probably, he can verify >first trick to himself (may be there are two HA or HK in this board?). I agree with all this. I think it is fairly trivial, but it is UI. >Finally TD must explain to defenders that, to be sure than the possible UI >never rise, in this situation it is preferably to call TD after play cease= s. I am not so happy with this. Once attention is drawn to an irregularity the TD must be summoned. In some situations it is better to do things correctly and not worry about the UI. This is a general point. >Dear colleagues, it is my first letter to BLML. >My name is Sergey Kapustin. I=92m 47 years old, Russian, mathematics. Play= ing >bridge since 1969. I=92m ex-president of Ukrainian Bridge Federation >(1991-1994), now - vice-president of Ukrainian Bridge Federation and >Chairmen of NSBO AC. I know about BLML from my friend Vitold Brushtunov >many years, but I have subscribe it only since 22 09 98 >I have the cat. She (not It!) is 8 years old, Her name is Liza. Hi. Nice to hear from you and Liza. >As you can see, my English is not my first languish=85 Don't worry about that. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 03:12:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:12:50 +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 ESMTP id DAA15450 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:12:39 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zO3ND-0007kc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:15:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:31:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Shanah Tovah - from Chyah and Kent Burghard In-Reply-To: <199809201432.AAA23461@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah and Kent Burghard wrote: >Guess what!! You have just received an animated greeting card from Chyah and >Kent Burghard >You can pick up your personal greeting by connecting to the following WWW >Address > >http://www.bluemountain.com/cards/box3593c/jfv2ivxxkbcixs.htm > >(Your greeting card will be available for the next 60 days) >This service is FREE! :) HAVE a good day and have fun! Thanks very much! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 08:42:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 08:42:59 +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 IAA16478 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 08:42:51 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA27117 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA17609 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:46:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809292246.SAA17609@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > +++ Dear Puzzled of Liverpool > The action of the Committee in Lille was simply to confirm its > previous interpretation of the Law in question. This is contained in a > minute of the WBFLC meeting, 18th October 1987, in Ocho Rios, > Jamaica, Ed Theus presiding. The minute reads: > " Re Letter from Mr. Ghose. The Committee held: > 1. ----------------------------------------------------- > 2. The reference in Law 43B2(c) to the penalty in Law 64 is > interpreted to mean the TWO TRICK penalty in this Law. > 3. Where defenders ask each other about a possible revoke the Laws > do not allow of the procedure in Law 43B2(c). " Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain to me how this works? (This is now 43B2(b); the text was 43B2(c) in 1987, but subpart (a) was deleted in 1997.) Suppose South, declarer, revokes, dummy has forfeited his rights, but dummy asks anyway. South now substitutes a legal card, still not winning the trick, and wins no further tricks in the rest of the play. Are we still supposed to transfer two tricks? Does it make any difference if South could have won a subsequent trick but chose to win tricks in dummy instead? What if there was no way he could have won a subsequent trick? Suppose South, at the time of the revoke, had no card that could have won the revoke trick, but he does win some subsequent tricks? Suppose South, at the time of the revoke, has one or more cards that could have won the revoke trick but in fact doesn't win a trick with any of them? (I can easily understand the two-trick penalty here.) Suppose the revoke is a second one in the same suit? (Of course there is no problem dealing with the first revoke under L64.) -- Puzzled of Cambridge (the new Cambridge) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 09:04:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:04:46 +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 JAA16520 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:04:39 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-208.s208.tnt2.brd.erols.com [207.172.119.208]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA13323 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809292308.TAA13323@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridgelaws" Subject: RE: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:07:56 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-reply-to: <199809291516.KAA27098@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 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 Grant C. > Sterling > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 11:16 AM > To: Bridgelaws > Subject: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand > > [snip] > > > > Does this mean that the person actually asked partner > "No clubs?" > at trick 8, and partner shook his head? > Ordinarily, I would most definately agree that the Laws do not > require a Director call. Perhaps Active Ethics does [I, > personally, would > point out the infraction]. But if partner was specifically > asked if he > had clubs and he replied [by gesture] that he did not, then I > would most > definately call the director. Such a mistake may very well have been > honest, but is clearly deceptive to the opponents. It's hard > enough to > look for revokes by declarer without having the additional > complication of > having declarer specifically deny at the time that he is revoking. > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > Yes, the question and response are deceptive, but do they really make it harder for the non-offenders to spot the revoke? Yes, it is difficult for many players to remember that clubs were led at trick 7 and declarer did not follow suit. Paradoxically, if partner of the revoker asked at trick 7 "No clubs partner?" and the revoker affirmed this (or there would have been no revoke, after all), that club is going to stand out all the more when the revoker finally has to play it. ("Didn't you say you were out of clubs a while back?") The question and wrong answer actually make it *easier* for the non-offenders to spot the revoke, by drawing attention to the revoke suit (and the revoker's incorrect lack thereof). Think about it. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 09:06:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:06:00 +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 JAA16535 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:05:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27852 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA17696 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:09:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809292309.TAA17696@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Ax Kx Kx AKQxxxx > If I have misunderstood what others have said, I am sorry. But it > appears to me that people would be happy with the notion that this > hand could open 1C out of turn without intent or malice aforethought, > just as South on the actual problem hand did not act in a premeditated > way when opening 2D. If that had happened, what adjustment would you > give when he next bid 3NT? I thought I made that quite clear. I'd adjust the score in a second, and I would have expected that to be unanimous. My bridge judgment is that this is a clear case of "could have known." My bridge judgment is that the original hand is completely different. To Jesper (with whom I agree completely on the legal issues): if you are dealt this hand and find that you have accidentally barred partner, I suggest you do not bid 3NT. If you bid, say, 3C, and you are right, you will keep your score, but bidding 3NT gives you no chance of a good score at all. (I am not at all sure about bidding 2C, but I think 1C is OK.) From: David Stevenson [I seem to have deleted the message. David asked something like "Doesn't it leave a bad taste in your mouth that the psycher gets a good score?"] No, it doesn't. If I had been Richard's opponent, it never would have occurred to me to call the TD. What leaves a bad taste in _my_ mouth is all the bridge lawyering (as I see it) to try to take away a legal result that some people dislike. [in a subsequent message] > Qx > Qxxx > Qxxx > Qxx > > Partner opens the multi out of turn. Later he bids 1H with you > silenced and the opponents reach 3NT. Oppo bans a heart lead. What do > you lead? > > By the logic espoused by yourself and Jesper and others in this thread > you find it acceptable to lead a spade expecting a reasonable > possibility that partner's suit will be spades, yet you do not think you > need to tell the oppos this. Yes, if there is relevant partnership discussion or experience, the opponents need to be told. Who doubts that? If there is such experience, a spade seems clearly illegal under L16C2. Do remember, the withdrawn 2D bid is UI. If there is no such experience, a spade seems crazy. In fact, I would take a spade lead as strong evidence that there is a CPU. Of course it won't beat 3NT anyway if partner's hand is the one Richard held. If the vulnerability is green, we seem to have missed our 4C or 4S sacrifice. Too bad partner had an accident instead of showing his suits. Do you still think he "could have known?" From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 09:10:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:10:07 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16564 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:10:01 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id TCMQa07925; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <753fa8c1.361168ca@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:10:02 EDT To: JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not at all convinced that active ethics require dummy to acknowledge to the table that a revoke has occurred. The Laws do not require even a declarer who discovers his revoke late to say anything, though they prevent him from deliberately attempting to cover it up, as by claiming or conceding and mixing together the cards with the discards. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 09:15:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:15:50 +1000 Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16582 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:15:44 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 8SYTa02301; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6a98cd42.36116958@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:12:24 EDT To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Law Books Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk << Are the rubber bridge laws going to be overhauled in 2003, does anyone have a guess? >> As it has been the general policy to update each set of Laws at approximately a ten-year interval, my semi-educated guess is that this will happen. It has also been our policy to make the rubber bridge Laws resemble the duplicate Laws in as many ways as are feasible, as an aside. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 09:33:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:33:07 +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 JAA16643 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:33:00 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-208.s208.tnt2.brd.erols.com [207.172.119.208]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA24723 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199809292336.TAA24723@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" Subject: RE: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:36:18 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-reply-to: <01bdebb6$7cd5bf00$21c6420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 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 > Richard F Beye > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 10:36 AM > To: Hirsch Davis; BLML Group > Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand > > > So Hirsch, what about 72 B4 - first clause. 72B4 does not appear to apply in this case. This law forbids concealing an inadvertent infraction by committing a subsequent infraction once you discover the first. That is, if someone revokes in clubs, and later discovers a club in hand, they must play that club to the next trick in which clubs are led despite the original infraction. Deliberate concealment of the initial infraction, mixing the cards quickly at the end of the hand, or deliberate concealment of the revoke card are forbidden. This does not constitute a requirement that the non-offenders be informed of the original infraction. If I were Dummy, and noticed that partner played his cards in such a way that the non-offenders did not get a good look at the revoke card, I would still not be legally obligated to point out the infraction. AFAIK, there are *no* laws that require that attention be drawn to an infraction (except Law 75, which specifies how misinformation in the auction must be corrected). However, in this situation, where improper procedure by my side has reduced the chances of the non-offenders to see the infraction and obtain recourse, I would consider myself ethically obligated to call the TD after play so that the opponents might obtain proper redress. (If I believed that partner deliberately concealed the revoke card from the opponents, it would be my last game with that partner). Hirsch > -----Original Message----- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: BLML Group > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 9:24 AM > Subject: RE: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand > > [snip] > >> > >> >Dear jay, > >> > I have a serious question and don't know who to ask > here so I am going > >> >to ask you. If I am dummy, and my partner does not play > a club on the > >> >eighth trick but has one as her thirteenth card and no > one at the table > >> >notices but me (the dummy), what am I supposed to do? I > am limited in > >> >what I can say (other than "No clubs, partner?" at trick > eight). A head > >> >shake I took for the truth. Then when I saw her > thirteenth card, I did > >> >not speak up but feel very guilty about it...she may have > made an honest > >> >mistake but we should not benefit from it. What is the rule? > > > >The rule is: > > > >72.B > >3. Inadvertent Infraction > >There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent > infraction of > Law > >committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for > a mistaken > >explanation). > > [snip] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 30 11:29:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:29:43 +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 ESMTP id LAA17047 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:29:27 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zOB7x-0007C0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:32:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 02:31:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <38RgYCAmdKE2EwFB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38RgYCAmdKE2EwFB@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip My considered final thoughts and a thank you ============================================ > I am sure that you are looking at the hand and not the principle. Try >to think about the generality. Let me give you an example auction. > > Qx > Qxxx > Qxxx > Qxx > > Partner opens the multi out of turn. Later he bids 1H with you >silenced and the opponents reach 3NT. Oppo bans a heart lead. What do >you lead? A diamond, what else? Partner asked for a H, and I can't lead one cos I'm banned, I make NO presumptions about pards actions at all, except he wanted me to lead a heart. It's AI I was silenced. > > By the logic espoused by yourself and Jesper and others in this thread >you find it acceptable to lead a spade expecting a reasonable >possibility that partner's suit will be spades, yet you do not think you >need to tell the oppos this. I don't think I need to, it is common bridge knowledge that in competitive auctions which you are going to lose (including this example) a suit bid is a lead director. (Void or A, who cares) > > Are you really comfortable with this? > Not terrifically, but while L72A5 exists and L23 is in its present form it's what I'm going to do. A regulation change prohibiting calls on fewer than 3 cards (ie essentially non-alertable suit calls) with a silenced partner would be appropriate. If we can regulate psyches of our strongest bid (illegally in my view) we can do this too. >>Just for example playing last night I was psyched against twice, by 2 >>different very strong players. Yet within this group no-one bats an >>eyelid as the element of surprise is just the same for all players at >>the table. Outside it we seldom psyche, but when we so choose we are far >>more likely to be successful because we practice. Legislating high- >>variance near-zero-sum actions out of the game changes bridge beyond >>recognition, and sadly *that is just what happened*. > > This has absolutely nothing to do with it. We are talking about >deliberately misinforming oppos and seeking to gain from infractions. This I think is irrelevant. 72A5 covers this, provided the infraction was unintentional. (If not I will have an uncomfortable time in front of the L&E Cttee) > >>When I play imps I never take prisoners. > > I don't believe you would actually do this at the table. > Probably not, but only because it's losing bridge, I'd have tried 4C. I've played a third of a million hands more bridge than Richard; I'm an EBU Director, but if I did do it I would argue that silencing pard on a hand where I can bully the opponents at the 5-level on a 2-count cannot be in my side's best interest. RHO opens 1D, I bid 4C and then 4S over their 4H, or I overcall 1NT, or I bid 3D asking for a D stop, or I bid 3NT. Why would I WANT to silence partner if I was thinking of psyching? This is not the case we're discussing - IMO the player in question found a fabulous at-the-table "one time coup". The action was a so-to-speak 10% chance after he'd loused the hand up totally. Richard's misfortune was that it *worked*. Suppose I missed a safety play through carelessness and was reduced to a backwash (whatever that is) which worked. Well done Suppose I opened out of turn through carelessness and was reduced to a lead director which worked. Well done. After carefully reading what must be 180 contributions to this thread I really cannot subscribe to any other view than "result stands" and a serious warning "You will NEVER get away with that again". (CPU or unlicensed convention, penalty: slow fire, thumb screws and compulsory attendance at L&E meetings for 10 years) Finally and personally: Thank you to every one who has contributed. I have been overwhelmed by the care with which people have argued their cases. I never dreamt that I would have so opened Pandora's Box when I posted the initial scenario and I hope that everyone else has found the arguments as fascinating. Thank you all 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