From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 01:32:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 01:32:18 +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 BAA21457 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 01:32:09 +1000 Received: from ip32.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.32]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980930153524.RWMN2535.fep4@ip32.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:35:24 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:35:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36134ac7.1505084@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809292309.TAA17696@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199809292309.TAA17696@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:09:17 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >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.) I don't think that it would even occur to me that I might not reach 3NT without the infraction. Unless partner would pass my intended 1C opening, I would expect that there are ways of getting to 3NT in just about every system. In that case the 3NT score with partner silenced will only be adjusted if partner would have passed 1C, since there is no damage otherwise. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 02:41:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 02:41:24 +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 CAA21770 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 02:41:17 +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 MAA20554 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA18193 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809301644.MAA18193@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: Jesper Dybdal > I don't think that it would even occur to me that I might not > reach 3NT without the infraction. Unless partner would pass my > intended 1C opening, I would expect that there are ways of > getting to 3NT in just about every system. In that case the 3NT > score with partner silenced will only be adjusted if partner > would have passed 1C, since there is no damage otherwise. I agree that if 3NT is the normal contract that always makes, you will keep your score. Then there is no damage. What if the opponents could have beaten 3NT given the information that would have been revealed by a normal auction? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 07:21:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 07:21:55 +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 HAA22533 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 07:21:47 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.188] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zOTgJ-0004U9-00; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bdecb8$cec693e0$bc3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:25:08 +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 L72A5 has been cited as giving the player, in the instance under discussion, carte blanche to bid what he liked. But the Law says: "...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..." Yet, when South bid 1H, North had not even passed once, let alone throughout, which was the prescribed penalty for the infraction. Note that the Law does not say "after the penalty has been assessed", but "after the offending side has paid the penalty". I am unable to see, therefore, its relevance to this case. South's 1H clearly occurred before the prescribed penalty had been paid for his opening out of turn. Note also, Grattan, that the Law does not say "the offenders may appropriately make any call or play..." An oversight, perhaps :) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 07:51:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 07:51:26 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22611 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 07:51:20 +1000 Received: from ip88.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.88]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19980930215439.SPWE2535.fep4@ip88.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:54:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:54:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3613a1b3.1631405@post12.tele.dk> References: <199809301644.MAA18193@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199809301644.MAA18193@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:44:44 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >What if the opponents could have beaten 3NT given the information that >would have been revealed by a normal auction? The question is then "Could I have known at the time of my BOOT that it would be likely to damage the opponents if I bid 1C OOT and then 3NT instead of getting there by normal methods?". I'd probably say no: I could not have known that. (a) I might miss a 6C contract, and (b) it is not always an advantage in practice to bid the final contract directly. On the other hand, if I psyched a 1H opening OOT (instead of bidding 1C OOT) and then bid 3NT, I'd expect a L72B1 adjustment unless the result is quite obvious on any auction. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 08:09:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 08:09:01 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22660 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 08:08:55 +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 SAA29410 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA18577 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:12:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199809302212.SAA18577@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" > "...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..." ... > that the Law does not say "after the penalty has been assessed", but > "after the offending side has paid the penalty". I think this question was brought up earlier in the thread. Does the above interpretation mean that, say, after a revoke, the revoker is not allowed to play to minimize the penalty (e.g. by avoiding winning a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick)? Or how about after a bid out of turn: is the bidder (whose partner will be barred but is not affected yet) obliged to choose a ridiculous contract instead of one that has some hope of being successful? No, it must be right to try to maximize one's score, given the situation one is in and the applicable legal constraints. Otherwise the game is not very interesting. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 11:16:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:16:46 +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 LAA22874 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:16:41 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p46.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.126]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02241; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:19:56 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981001105617.00752f78@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 10:56:17 +1000 To: "David Burn" From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <001d01bdecb8$cec693e0$bc3463c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:25 30/09/98 +0100, you wrote: >L72A5 has been cited as giving the player, in the instance under >discussion, carte blanche to bid what he liked. But the Law says: > >"...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..." > >Yet, when South bid 1H, North had not even passed once, let alone >throughout, which was the prescribed penalty for the infraction. Note >that the Law does not say "after the penalty has been assessed", but >"after the offending side has paid the penalty". I am unable to see, >therefore, its relevance to this case. South's 1H clearly occurred >before the prescribed penalty had been paid for his opening out of >turn. ## This is the same exact point that I made in an earlier submission, but nobody seemed to support it. The few opinions expressed seemed to support the idea that the Law means 'after the penalty has been assessed' which is very clearly what it does not say. Reg. >Note also, Grattan, that the Law does not say "the offenders may >appropriately make any call or play..." An oversight, perhaps :) > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 11:16:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:16:50 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22881 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:16:46 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p46.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.126]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02262; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:20:00 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981001111001.00752f78@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:10:01 +1000 To: Steve Willner From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199809302212.SAA18577@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:12 30/09/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> "...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..." >... >> that the Law does not say "after the penalty has been assessed", but >> "after the offending side has paid the penalty". > >I think this question was brought up earlier in the thread. > >Does the above interpretation mean that, say, after a revoke, the >revoker is not allowed to play to minimize the penalty (e.g. by >avoiding winning a trick with a card that could have been played to the >revoke trick)? Or how about after a bid out of turn: is the bidder >(whose partner will be barred but is not affected yet) obliged to >choose a ridiculous contract instead of one that has some hope of being >successful? > >No, it must be right to try to maximize one's score, given the situation >one is in and the applicable legal constraints. Otherwise the game is >not very interesting. > ## I think that Steve and I had a private discussion earlier on this point. As I see it, the crucial phrase is 'even though they thereby appear to profit from their own infraction'. This Law does not prevent you from taking action to minimise the damage from your revoke, but any action that may favour your side through the infraction is not permitted until the penalty has been paid. Perhaps the Lawmakers meant to say 'after the penalty has been assessed', but that is certainly not what the Law says. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 1 23:53:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 23:53:15 +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 XAA25237 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 23:53:09 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zOjDW-0005zV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:56:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:51:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Butler scoring MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have sent this to BLML and RGB My understanding is that cross-imp scoring is considered fairer than Butler. Cross-imp scoring means that you score the pair with every other pair in the room as team-mates and total the scores: Butler means that you work out a datum score for each board and imp against that. However, for less important competitions Butler is probably better because the scoring looks more 'real' since players can work their own score out against a single known score. Assume, therefore, that a competition is going to be run as Butler. How do you calculate the Butler? Traditionally you knock off the top score and the bottom score for fewer than 9 [?] scores, the top two and the bottom two for up to 25 [?] scores, and the top three and the bottom three for more. Then you take the other scores, add them together, and divide by the number of scores to get your datum. Non-mathematicians like myself refer to 'averaging' the other scores, though I do not know whether this is a true average. One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging them. Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between the two middle ones with an even number]. An example: 1100, 430, 430, 430, 400, -50, -50. Delete the first and last score, average the other five [430, 430, 430, 400, -50], 328. Delete the first and last score, average the top and bottom [430, -50], 190. Take the middle score, 430. I think that the first method is most common. In a skewed board like the example given the last method may be fairest, since game is normal and it would seem right to score against it. However, it may not be so fair on other distributions. I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about the benefits of cross-imping. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 00:57:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 00:57:37 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27647 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 00:57:31 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA01234 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810011500.LAA03123@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:51:36 +0100) Subject: Re: Butler scoring Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest > score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging > them. Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between > the two middle ones with an even number]. An example: > 1100, 430, 430, 430, 400, -50, -50. > Delete the first and last score, average the other five [430, 430, > 430, 400, -50], 328. > Delete the first and last score, average the top and bottom [430, > -50], 190. > Take the middle score, 430. > I think that the first method is most common. In a skewed board like > the example given the last method may be fairest, since game is normal > and it would seem right to score against it. However, it may not be so > fair on other distributions. The median can be very unfair on a single board. Suppose that everyone is in game on a board. If seven pairs make the game and six go down, then the median may be +620, which means that +620 is 0 IMPs and -100 is -12 IMPs. If six make game and seven go down, the median may be -100, which means that +620 is 12 IMPs and -100 is 0 IMPs. > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? The mean is the sum of all the scores, divided by the number of score. The median is the middle score; half the scores are above it and half below. "Average" is usually used to mean "mean", but it is a less precise term and sometimes refers to other types of averages. > Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is > best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about > the benefits of cross-imping. The reason for dropping the extreme scores is fairness; including a +1100 on a low-scoring deal throws off the scores for normal results. The pair which collected +1100 should be rewarded (and its opponents punished), but the pairs which happened to be sitting the same direction as the +1100 should still get near-average scores for near-average play. The standard Butler scoring is best. It's not clear exactly how many extreme scores to throw out, but it should usually be relatively few so that less common but reasonable results do have an effect. If there is only one wild score, it should surely be dropped; if there are two in a small field (say, two tables bid to a slam), it is probably correct to give these scores some value in determining the par. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 01:21:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:21:28 +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 BAA27705 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:21:20 +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 QAA03463 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:29 +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 QAA18152 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25503 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:11 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199810011524.QAA25503@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? The (arithmetic) mean is what is commonly called the average add the values up and divide by the number of values. [ The are other mean: geometric, arithmetico-geometric, harmonic, etc. none of which are at all relevant.] The median is the middle value (or the mean of the middle two). I don't know a name for the mean of the extreme (having thrown away the top and bottom): "mid-range", "inter-quartile", etc.? > Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is > best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about > the benefits of cross-imping. The median method has certain attractions but if has some awkward features. E.g. 13 tables where everyone bid 3H/4H (NV) and makes 10 tricks. If 6 tables bid game the median is 170 and the game bidder score +6IMPS (and their oppo lose), while the partscore tables are flat. If 7 tables bid game then the median is 420 and the partscore bidders lose -6IMPs (and their oppo gain) and the game tables are flat. Using the mean method, the par will be 300 both times, and everyone will score +/- 3IMPS. 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 Oct 2 01:27:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:27:36 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA27721 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:27:29 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:30:38 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01232 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:28:54 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Butler scoring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:28:25 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? Ah! A question I'm qualified to answer, at last! The "mean" is what you called the average (i.e., add up the scores and divide by the number of scores). The "median" is the middle score. E.g., the mean of 430, 430, 430, 400, -50 is 328 and the median is 430. A schoolteacher would tell you that these are both varieties of "average" and that you shouldn't use the word "average" without saying which kind, but in practice it's more or less a synonym for "mean". [To be even more precise, the "mean" described above is the "arithmetic mean", as opposed to "geometric mean", which is something different.] > Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is > best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about > the benefits of cross-imping. Probably a matter of opinion. I can give you some disadvantages of each method: Median method. A small change in the set of scores can make a large difference in the median: e.g., if you have 19 scores of which 10 are +1440 and 9 are -100, then the median is +1440, but if 9 are +1440 and 10 are -100, the median is -100. This makes a 17 IMP difference to everybody's score. Mean method. Distorts the IMP scale. E.g., if you have a board where everybody's in 6NT vulnerable and about half are making it, so the datum is about +770, then the difference between making and going off is about 26 IMPs, whereas in a head-to-head match it would be 17 IMPs; however, if very few pairs are going off, then it's worth closer to 17 IMPs. In general, it exaggerates the difference between below-average scores and above-average scores. Given the choice, I'd probably go for the mean method. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 01:42:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:42:00 +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 BAA27770 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:41:53 +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 0zOkul-0005gj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:45:11 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4BHP29MJ>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:34:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:34:45 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > I have sent this to BLML and RGB > > My understanding is that cross-imp scoring is considered fairer than > Butler. Cross-imp scoring means that you score the pair with every > other pair in the room as team-mates and total the scores: Butler > means > that you work out a datum score for each board and imp against that. > However, for less important competitions Butler is probably better > because the scoring looks more 'real' since players can work their own > score out against a single known score. > > Assume, therefore, that a competition is going to be run as Butler. > How do you calculate the Butler? Traditionally you knock off the top > score and the bottom score for fewer than 9 [?] scores, the top two > and > the bottom two for up to 25 [?] scores, and the top three and the > bottom > three for more. Then you take the other scores, add them together, > and > divide by the number of scores to get your datum. Non-mathematicians > like myself refer to 'averaging' the other scores, though I do not > know > whether this is a true average. > > One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest > score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging > them. Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between > the two middle ones with an even number]. An example: > > 1100, 430, 430, 430, 400, -50, -50. > > Delete the first and last score, average the other five [430, 430, > 430, 400, -50], 328.######### This is the mean score. ############ > > Delete the first and last score, average the top and bottom [430, > -50], 190. ########## Never heard of this method before. ######## > > Take the middle score, 430. ####### This is the median score. > ######### > > I think that the first method is most common. In a skewed board > like > the example given the last method may be fairest, since game is normal > and it would seem right to score against it. However, it may not be > so > fair on other distributions. > > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? > > Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is > best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately > about > the benefits of cross-imping. > > > ########### BTW. Cross-Imp is always best if at all possible and > Butler cannot be used for single-winner arrow-switched movements for > the same reasons that aggregate scoring cannot be used. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 01:49:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:49:45 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27791 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:49:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-120.uunet.be [194.7.13.120]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27343 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:52:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3613B35E.DA60C715@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 17:52:46 +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 Statistics 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 RAA27343 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Less than 3 months (my previous post was far into the third trimester), b= ut 1353 messages ! A busy time was spent by :=20 224 readers in 33 countries in 6 out of 7 zones ! by zone : zone 1 - Europe - 86 in 22 countries GB : 26 DE : 9 DK, NL : 8 BE, FR, IL, RU : 4 PT : 3 CH, ES, IT : 2 AT, CZ, EE, GL, HR, IE, NO, SE, UA, YU : 1 zone 2 - North America - 71 in 3 countries US : 55 CA : 15 BM : 1 zone 3 - South America - still none zone 4 - South Asia and Africa - 2 in 2 countries IN, ZA : 1 zone 5 - Central America and Carribean - 1 !(John MacGregor, formerly of = Costa Rica, now in Guyana) GY : 1 zone 6 - Far East - 3 in 3 countries ID, JP, SG : 1 zone 7 - Pacific - 21 in 2 countries AU : 13 NZ : 8 unknown (mostly N-Am) : 40 98 of us are active posters : (1) 150 (1) David Stevenson (incl Quango & Nanki Poo) (2) 143 (2) Marvin L. French (3) 109 (4) Grattan Endicott (4) 76 (7) Steve Willner (5) 67 (5) Eric Landau (6) 62 (6) John (MadDog) Probst (7) 61 (3) Herman De Wael (8) 55 (10) Jesper Dybdal (9) 44 (8) Dany Haimovici (10) 33 (43) Jan Kamras (11) 32 (11) Craig Senior (12) 30 (9) David Martin (12) 30 (20) Vitold Brushtunov (14) 29 (--) Adam Wildavsky (15) 28 (18) Grant C. Sterling (16) 24 (15) Tim Goodwin (17) 20 (18) Anne Jones (17) 20 (70) Anton Witzen (17) 20 (15) Michael S. Dennis (20) 19 (24) David Burn (21) 17 (12) David Grabiner (22) 15 (--) Richard F Beye (23) 14 (59) Tim West-Meads (24) 13 (--) Christian Bernscherer (25) 12 (37) Bill Segraves (25) 12 (77) Tony Musgrove (27) 10 (37) Linda Weinstein (27) 10 (26) Richard Lighton (29) 9 (22) Labeo=20 (29) 9 (13) Robin Barker (31) 8 (59) Henk Uijterwaal (32) 7 (28) Hirsch Davis (32) 7 (37) Michael Farebrother (34) 6 (49) G. R. Bower (34) 6 (17) Jeremy Rickard (34) 6 (34) John R. Mayne (34) 6 (63) KRAllison (38) 5 (13) Adam Beneschan (38) 5 (59) Laval Dubreuil (38) 5 (37) Reg Busch (41) 4 (43) AlLeBendig (41) 4 (59) Axeman (Roger Pewick) (41) 4 (52) Chyah E Burghard (41) 4 (49) Jan Peter Pals (41) 4 (26) Jeff Goldsmith (41) 4 (43) Mark Abraham (41) 4 (49) Markus Buchhorn (41) 4 (23) Nancy T. Dressing (41) 4 (59) Roger Pewick (50) 3 (30) A.L. Edwards (50) 3 (70) Irwin J. Kostal (50) 3 (30) Jay Apfelbaum (50) 3 (63) Jean-Pierre Rocafort (50) 3 (43) John A. Kuchenbrod (50) 3 (70) Julie Atkinson (50) 3 (63) Kooijman (50) 3 (28) Laurence Kelso1 (50) 3 (70) Michael Albert (50) 3 (70) Michael Amos (60) 2 (43) Thomas Dehn (60) 2 (--) Andr=E9 Pion (60) 2 (93) Barry Wolk (60) 2 (52) Chris Pisarra (60) 2 (--) Jan Romanski (60) 2 (83) Mike Dodson (60) 2 (93) Patrick (60) 2 (52) R Craig H (60) 2 (83) Richard Odlin (60) 2 (30) Richard Willey (60) 2 (52) Robin Michaels (60) 2 (83) Rui Marques (60) 2 (83) Sergei Litvak (60) 2 (--) Siddiqui, Aslam (60) 2 (93) Yvan Calam=E9 (75) 1 (77) B A Small (75) 1 (93) Bob Scruton (75) 1 (--) Buzz Kribs (75) 1 (37) Christian Chantigny (75) 1 (52) Christian Farwig (75) 1 (--) Con Holzscherer (75) 1 (77) Damian Hassan (75) 1 (--) Daniel Jackson (75) 1 (70) David Kent (75) 1 (43) E.Angad-Gaur (75) 1 (--) Leslie West (75) 1 (--) Jack Rhind (75) 1 (83) Martin Pool (75) 1 (--) Peter Haglich (75) 1 (93) Ralf Teichmann (75) 1 (34) Robert Nordgren (75) 1 (--) robinswr@erols.com (75) 1 (83) Roger Penny (75) 1 (93) Ron Johnson (75) 1 (93) Rusty Court (75) 1 (--) Sergey Kapustin (75) 1 (63) Simon Edler --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 02:06:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:06:09 +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 CAA27986 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:06:02 +1000 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id SAA17759; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:09:21 +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 SAA01963; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:09:20 +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 SAA16820; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:09:21 +0200 Message-ID: <3613A930.D0AAE798@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:09:20 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I have sent this to BLML and RGB > > My understanding is that cross-imp scoring is considered fairer than > Butler. Cross-imp scoring means that you score the pair with every > other pair in the room as team-mates and total the scores: Butler means > that you work out a datum score for each board and imp against that. > However, for less important competitions Butler is probably better > because the scoring looks more 'real' since players can work their own > score out against a single known score. I agree. Also, with a Butler score people can more easily compute/check their own scores when the datum scores are published. > Assume, therefore, that a competition is going to be run as Butler. > How do you calculate the Butler? Traditionally you knock off the top > score and the bottom score for fewer than 9 [?] scores, But more than 5 or so. With a small number of score, I prefer other algorithms (see below). > Then you take the other scores, add them together, and > divide by the number of scores to get your datum. Non-mathematicians > like myself refer to 'averaging' the other scores, though I do not know > whether this is a true average. I don't think that a 'true average' is a rigourously defined mathematical concept. > One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest > score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging > them. It is common. However, what is the basis for this removal? I could think up two: 1. Extreme scores influence the average too much. 2. Extreme scores usually are freak accidents that should be removed from the computation. About 1 I can say that this is true and it is the reason for the logarithmic IMP scale we use. This argument therefore points us in the direction of cross-imps, where the extremes are scaled down logarithmically. About 2 I want to say that this is a very dangerous assumption. Example: If everybody opens the North hand with one club (with 14 points opposite Souths yarborough) and only pair of opponents doubles NS and scores 1100 and the others just bid their own game scoring 430 or 460, the 1100 certainly is no freak but a normal (if unique) result. > Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between > the two middle ones with an even number]. An example: > > 1100, 430, 430, 430, 400, -50, -50. A bad idea. Example: 1001 tables, 500 times +620, 501 times -100. Fairness would suggest that making 4 hearts is about 50%, so +620 should be about the same plus as -100 is minus. > Delete the first and last score, average the other five [430, 430, > 430, 400, -50], 328. Normal procedure; reasonable result. > Delete the first and last score, average the top and bottom [430, > -50], 190. Bad idea. Example: 1000 tables, 996 times +620, 4 times -100. Fairness would suggest that making 4 hearts would be a very small plus and -100 a big minus instead of the equality that averaging the 'remaining extremes' yields. > I think that the first method is most common. In a skewed board like > the example given the last method may be fairest, since game is normal > and it would seem right to score against it. I do not like this reasoning. If there is - let's say - a one in three chance for 3 NT down one, people who make it should be rewarded. > However, it may not be so fair on other distributions. In my opinion it is not fair in this case also. > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? 'Median' denotes the middle one, i.e. as many above as below this number. The mathematical term 'arithmetic mean' is commonly understood as the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of them. I think both 'average' and 'mean' are usually used as synomyms for 'arithmetic mean'. Mathematically speaking 'mean' can be used for other methods of computing. For instance for the method I use for computing the Butler score of 5 results. I take the extreme scores once and the other three scores twice, add it all up and devide the result by 10. This is what mathematicians would call a weighed average with weights [1,2,2,2,1]. The common Butler scoring uses this method with weights [0,0,1,1,1.......,1,1,0,0] with a zero more or less. > Which method is best? Why? I think cross-imps is fairest and prefer to compute a Butler- score that gives the best approximation for the results. > Please can you just answer for which is best for Butler scoring: No, I can't. If you ask this kind of question, you get the extensive answer it deserves! -- 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 Fri Oct 2 03:31:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 03:31:25 +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 DAA28130 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 03:31:16 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA064513271; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:34:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA141343269; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:34:29 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:24:49 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Missing card in dummy 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, I think we had something like this on the list last year, but was not able to find.... I apologise. A hand was played with 12 cards exposed in dummy, 2 beeing stuck-on. Players realised the situation after playing 10 or 11 tricks.... What is the correct ruling? 1) Apply Law 14B1b and let score stand whitout any adjustment allowing all players are responsible of dummy? =20 2) Apply Law 14B1b and give a revoke penalty to =20 declarer if any, allowing dummy did not spread his hand correctly as required by Law 41D? 3) Apply Law 14B1b, let the score stand and give declarer a PP because dummy did not follow Law 41D? 4) Cancel the hand and award an artificial score saying a bridge hand can not be played with 12 cards? Avg minus to both pairs (responsible of dummy)? Avg minus to declarer's pair (Law 41D)? Would you please comment on responsability of all players according to dummy's cards. Is it true that when dummy's card are correctly exposed on table all players, including dummy player, have to watch for possible revoke and that revoke penalties do not apply? If yes what is the Law specifying this? =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 03:43:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 03:43:17 +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 DAA28168 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 03:43:11 +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 KAA12304 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA12795; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:48:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:48:30 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810011748.KAA12795@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Butler scoring David Stevenson wrote: | Assume, therefore, that a competition is going to be run as Butler. |How do you calculate the Butler? Traditionally you knock off the top |score and the bottom score for fewer than 9 [?] scores, the top two and |the bottom two for up to 25 [?] scores, and the top three and the bottom |three for more. Then you take the other scores, add them together, and |divide by the number of scores to get your datum. Non-mathematicians |like myself refer to 'averaging' the other scores, though I do not know |whether this is a true average. Close enough. | One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest |score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging |them. Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between |the two middle ones with an even number]. An example: | | 1100, 430, 430, 430, 400, -50, -50. | | Delete the first and last score, average the other five [430, 430, |430, 400, -50], 328. | | Delete the first and last score, average the top and bottom [430, |-50], 190. | | Take the middle score, 430. | | I think that the first method is most common. In a skewed board like |the example given the last method may be fairest, since game is normal |and it would seem right to score against it. However, it may not be so |fair on other distributions. | | I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A |correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the |'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? The sample mean (or "arithmetic mean" or "average") is just what you think, add up the numbers and divide by the number of samples. The median is the middle result. These are all statistics of a sample, all first-order ones. (There are all sorts of 2nd, 3rd, etc. moments of a distribution and many other statistics on one.) | Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is |best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about |the benefits of cross-imping. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. In a very regular sample (set of results), the mean produces somewhat wacky results. For example, if the scores are 0, 0, 0, 0, 1100 (ignore the Butlering for the moment, as we can just add extreme results to produce the same effect), the scores against a mean are going to be -6, -6, -6, -6, +13. For those who passed out the board, to see a lose six seems a bit strange. Another strangeness of the mean is that one will IMP against impossible scores sometimes, and usually against scores that won't have much to do with the actual board. In a bimodal sample, the median produces strange results. Others have quoted examples, but a simple one is to compare the samples 0, 0, 0, 1100, 1100, and 0, 0, 1100, 1100, 1100. In the first, the scores are 0, 0, 0, +15, +15, in the second, -15, -15, -15, 0, 0. On a fairly flat board, however, the median does very well. If the scores are 620, 620, 620, 620, -100, we get 0, 0, 0, 0, -12, which is what we "expect" in a way. The mean is awful for this; the results are +4, +4, +4, +4, -11. The difference between -11 and -12 isn't important, but the effect that one poor result your way causes the normal result to produce four IMPs is unpleasant to me. This is a standard complaint of players at IMP pairs; if you don't get the cards, you get nickeled and dimed to death when your opponents bid and make normal cold games. This is a very real effect and can dominate the results in IMP pair contests. Another type of statistic of this ilk is the "mode." That's the score that had the most occurrances. It'd produce the same results as the median in the example above. It is even more unstable than the median. To answer "which method is best" requires more information. What do you mean by "best?" Is it, "fairest?" They are all entirely fair---no one has any advantage by the choice of statistic. None are biased. Which produces a better contest? I don't know; I don't even know how to test an example. If I had a vote, I'd guess that the median would work better than the mean, but that's just a flat-out guess. My reasoning is that there are more near-flat boards than highly bimodal boards. Perhaps a statistic that combines the two would be nice; it'd come close to the mode when the scores are unimodal and produce a less unstable result when they are bimodal. I haven't thought of how to figure such a thing, I admit. If one chooses the median, a mild fix for the instability problem is to fail to compare E/W with N/S scores. Within direction, it doesn't matter at all whether or not we had the 0 0 0 15 15 or -15 -15 -15 0 0 result; those who were +1100 gained 15 IMPs on those who passed the board out. To a lesser extent, that's true for the mean as well. Note that datum scores need to be computed across the field, or comparison between sections is extremely inaccurate. --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 Fri Oct 2 06:01:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:01:34 +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 GAA28555 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:01:27 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-248.uunet.be [194.7.13.248]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27468 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3613ED6F.CE0D6A88@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:00:31 +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: Re: Butler scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > ########### BTW. Cross-Imp is always best if at all possible and > > Butler cannot be used for single-winner arrow-switched movements for > > the same reasons that aggregate scoring cannot be used. ########### Please explain this ! (privately if you want) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 06:01:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:01:39 +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 GAA28563 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:01:33 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-248.uunet.be [194.7.13.248]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27451; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3613EC8F.5D52F502@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:56:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Butler scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wow, 4 replies before mine ! David Stevenson wrote: > > I have sent this to BLML and RGB > Now David, you _know_ who to turn to ! > My understanding is that cross-imp scoring is considered fairer than > Butler. Cross-imp scoring means that you score the pair with every > other pair in the room as team-mates and total the scores: Butler means > that you work out a datum score for each board and imp against that. > However, for less important competitions Butler is probably better > because the scoring looks more 'real' since players can work their own > score out against a single known score. > Indeed when people want to check their scores, they like to compare to just one number. Cross-IMPs is less "natural" for players. > Assume, therefore, that a competition is going to be run as Butler. > How do you calculate the Butler? Traditionally you knock off the top > score and the bottom score for fewer than 9 [?] scores, the top two and > the bottom two for up to 25 [?] scores, and the top three and the bottom > three for more. I find these numbers too arbitrary, that is why I have suggested knocking off 10% of the scores either way. > Then you take the other scores, add them together, and > divide by the number of scores to get your datum. Non-mathematicians > like myself refer to 'averaging' the other scores, though I do not know > whether this is a true average. > It is a true average of the non-knocked-off scores. > One suggestion that I have heard is to take the highest and lowest > score left after deleting the top/bottom one/two/three and averaging > them. Silly - only two scores determine the result ? > Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between > the two middle ones with an even number]. Maybe even sillier - only one score determines the result, albeit a more representative one. David, are you trying to get rid of your computer and do you WANT to do this by hand ? An example: [snipped] > > I have two questions. The first is about nomenclature. A > correspondent refers to the "mean or median method". What is the > 'mean'? What is the 'median'? What is 'average'? mean = average median = middle score > > Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is > best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about > the benefits of cross-imping. > see above and my web-pages. My suggested method of Butler is called Bastille and has been in regular use since 14 July 1989. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 06:14:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:14:00 +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 GAA28685 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:13:55 +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 NAA13874 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA13409; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:15:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:15:23 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810012015.NAA13409@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: | > Another way is to take the middle score [or an average between | > the two middle ones with an even number]. | | Maybe even sillier - only one score determines the result, albeit a more representative one. I won't argue with the "silly" part, but the second part of the statement is incorrect. It is impossible to compute a median without using the rest of the sample. Therefore, all the scores determine the result. --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 Fri Oct 2 07:06:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:06:19 +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 HAA28826 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:06:13 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.189] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zOpw0-00048y-00; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: <009401bded7f$ce3ee5e0$ad2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler scoring Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:09:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One year, in the not too distant past, our national Selection Committee debated what would be the best method of scoring a particular form of pairs trial. About half the members of the Committee did not know a mode from a mole, or a median from a melon, but they were all pretty mean. The other half fancied themselves as mathematicians - trouble was, each also fancied himself as the only one who knew what he was talking about. [In this case, the masculine pronoun does not include the feminine, for reasons that I am sure will be obvious.] The debate lasted for one and a half hours. My contribution, though I had a working knowledge of the mathematical principles involved, was to opine that it would not matter for practical purposes, then go to sleep. When the 120-board trial had finished, I collected the results, and I scored them by every single method that had been suggested by any member of the Committee during the debate. And do you know what? The first three places were unchanged under every single scoring method - even though under the actual method used, which was "traditional" Butler scoring eliminating the top and bottom of 9 results, the difference between 1st and 2nd was 12 IMPs and between 2nd and 3rd 5 IMPs. It took the application of a particularly "bimodal" ( = "bonkers") scoring method to cause any major shift in the minor placings (if you see what I mean). As a result of an equally ludicrous debate at our local bridge club, the odd-numbered tables now arrow-switch boards on the penultimate round. The mathematical reason for this is unassailable. The fact that anyone should care about it is...well, those who care about that sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they care about. Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for Economics when he proved that (over-simplification coming up) it was impossible to devise a voting system that would meet every criterion (or, indeed, very many criteria) of "fairness" that reasonable people could reasonably impose. The same is true of scoring systems at bridge; whatever model you propose, it will be trivial to construct a counter-example under which that model does not work. But that does not matter, for all models have this in common when applied to a sufficiently large number of boards: If you play well enough, you win. If you don't, you don't. Should this debate continue, please could it do so somewhere else? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 07:42:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:42:47 +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 HAA28889 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:42:41 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA29894 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA19353 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:46:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810012146.RAA19353@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Butler scoring X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin > > Butler cannot be used for single-winner arrow-switched movements for > > the same reasons that aggregate scoring cannot be used. A point to remember! In fact, Butler is unfair for comparisons between any group that do not play exactly the same set of boards in the same direction. You can ameliorate this unfairness by "recentering" the result on each board so the sum of the NS scores and the sum of the EW scores are both zero. (Cross-imps does this automatically.) Herman's "Bastille" scoring, which is essentially Butler with fractional IMPs, is an improvement, but it still needs to be recentered if you are going to compare pairs who have played different boards or different directions. I have wondered about using a scoring method that would pick the datum such that the sum of the IMP scores on each board (for both EW and NS) would be zero. (If the IMP scale were logarithmic, this would be sort of equivalent to using the geometric mean.) This "force IMPs to zero" method would work best in Bastille, where there wouldn't be roundoff problems. > From: jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Goldsmith) > In a bimodal sample, the median produces strange results. Others > have quoted examples, but a simple one is to compare the samples > 0, 0, 0, 1100, 1100, and 0, 0, 1100, 1100, 1100. In the first, > the scores are 0, 0, 0, +15, +15, in the second, -15, -15, -15, 0, 0. Recentering solves this problem. The scores are -6, -6, -6, +9, +9 in the first example and -9, -9, +6, +6, +6 in the second. The disadvantage, of course, is that the scoring is less obvious to the players. In the "force IMPs to zero" method, the datum in the first example would be 360, and the scores would be -8, -8, -8, +12, +12. This exaggerates the large swings, which may be undesirable, but it is better than using arithmetic mean (a datum of 440 in this example and scores -10, -10, -10, +12, +12). In straight Butler, with top and bottom dropped and using arithmetic mean, we get almost the same result as "force IMPs to zero," but that's only a coincidence in this example. It wouldn't be true if there were more scores with the same pattern; the limiting case is arithmetic mean. > Another type of statistic of this ilk is the "mode." That's the > score that had the most occurrances. It'd produce the same results > as the median in the example above. It is even more unstable than > the median. Technically, I think the mode is _more_ stable, not less, but it is _much_ less sensitive. That means you need far more results in order for the mode to be meaningful. It might be the best statistic if you were running a very large game, say 100 tables or more. (Mode is used, in fact, for a closely analogous purpose in astronomical imaging, but there we have upwards of 10^5 results.) Again, you have to recenter if you plan to compare different directions. Overall, I'd say "median" gives swing sizes closest to normal IMP teams. The problem is that if you want a single winner or otherwise need to have different pairs playing different boards (e.g. boards are made by players from hand records or the movement requires skipping a board set), you have to recenter. Then the players cannot directly compute their scores from a datum, and you might as well have used cross-IMPs. If you demand a single datum from which players can calculate their own scores, "force IMPs to zero" may be best, especially if you are willing to use fractional IMPs. The swings are a little exaggerated compared to median or teams, but you don't have to worry about the movement, and you can have a single winner. Is there some disadvantage that I'm missing? Personally, I strongly prefer cross-IMPs. They are not really all that hard to score by hand up to seven or eight tables. > Note that datum scores need to be computed > across the field, or comparison between sections is extremely > inaccurate. Definitely. On a related topic, I have been meaning for some time to suggest an entirely new scoring method. Is that an appropriate topic for BLML, or should I post in RGB? Anyone having an opinion is invited to email. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 07:51:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:51:47 +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 HAA28907 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:51:41 +1000 Received: from modem73.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.73] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zOqgf-0002Vi-00; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:55:01 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:50:16 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Grattan > Cc: David Stevenson ; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced > Date: 30 September 1998 22:25 > > Note also, Grattan, that the Law does not say "the offenders may > appropriately make any call or play..." An oversight, perhaps :) > :-) :-) Maybe - or perhaps one may appropriately leave it unsaid that calls and plays allowed by the laws may be made even by offenders ? :-) :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 07:51:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:51:50 +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 HAA28908 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:51:43 +1000 Received: from modem73.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.73] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zOqgg-0002Vi-00; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:55:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:52:40 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Grattan > Cc: David Stevenson ; >Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced > Date: 30 September 1998 22:25 > > L72A5 has been cited as giving the player, in the instance under > discussion, carte blanche to bid what he liked. But the Law says: > > "...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..." > ++++ The point has been raised previously and I know of no ruling upon the question at Zonal or World level. However, if you follow this line, there is equally nothing in the laws concerning the period between the infraction and completion of payment of the penalty and there is nothing to suggest an impropriety can exist in making any legal call or play in this period. Nor is there anything in the laws to forbid a call or play that would be legal otherwise. So the specific consideration, in the case that led to this thread, is that no violation of law occurred although one or two people have desired to visualise one and the appeals committee appeared to say that whilst they could not point to such a violation one surely must exist - which is an approach to the laws that I have not previously encountered. On the general point, the common practice is to treat the law as considering a penalty paid when it is imposed (rather than assessed) and personally I believe this was the likely intention when the law was instituted. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 07:53:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:53:16 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28938 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:53:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA30089 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA19381 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:56:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810012156.RAA19381@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > And do you know what? The > first three places were unchanged under every single scoring method - This is an excellent caution against getting overexcited about scoring methods. Nevertheless, there is one example of a pair _losing_ several thousand dollars when a score correction _added_ 20 points to their score on a board. (They should have avoided making that overtrick!) I think Herman has the story in one of his scoring pages. I submit that a scoring method where the above can happen (Butler with a single winner) is undesirable, and I further submit that there are numerous scoring methods where it cannot happen (cross-IMPs being perhaps the most obvious). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 08:43:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 08:43:12 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29024 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 08:43:06 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA30983 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA19415 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:46:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810012246.SAA19415@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Missing card in dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > A hand was played with 12 cards exposed in dummy, > 2 being stuck-on. Players realised the situation after > playing 10 or 11 tricks.... We did indeed discuss this some while ago. If dummy has revoked, apply L64C -- no penalty, but TD restores equity if defenders were damaged. Dummy has violated L41D, so any doubt is resolved in favor of defenders. In addition, if defender's not seeing a key card has caused them to defend wrong, adjust the score under L12A1. At least I think this was the consensus. I'm fairly sure about the first, just slightly uncertain about the second, and completely certain someone will tell the list if I'm wrong. :-) I don't recall any discussion of PP's. I suppose you might consider one if dummy does this a lot, but I hardly think giving a PPf would be common. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 09:18:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 09:18:52 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29098 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 09:18:47 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zOs2p-00058d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 23:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: <$97ejaBI5AF2Ewtl@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 00:20:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Missing card in dummy In-Reply-To: <199810012246.SAA19415@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810012246.SAA19415@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA >> A hand was played with 12 cards exposed in dummy, >> 2 being stuck-on. Players realised the situation after >> playing 10 or 11 tricks.... > >We did indeed discuss this some while ago. > >If dummy has revoked, apply L64C -- no penalty, but TD restores equity >if defenders were damaged. Dummy has violated L41D, so any doubt is >resolved in favor of defenders. > >In addition, if defender's not seeing a key card has caused them to >defend wrong, adjust the score under L12A1. > >At least I think this was the consensus. I'm fairly sure about the >first, just slightly uncertain about the second, and completely certain >someone will tell the list if I'm wrong. :-) > >I don't recall any discussion of PP's. I suppose you might consider >one if dummy does this a lot, but I hardly think giving a PPf would be >common. This is my recollection too. I usually ban the player who played the board on the previous round from eating dates with his fingers too. It's usually caused by something of that ilk on the previous round :) 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 Oct 2 10:10:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:10:55 +1000 Received: from mail1.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [195.61.43.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29244 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:10:49 +1000 Received: from bidule2 (portge11.worldcom.ch [194.235.4.11]) by mail1.worldcom.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA05615 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:11:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981002001415.00dc4f2c@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, 02 Oct 1998 02:14:15 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: butler, what about -19.999 - +19.999, ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another problem with all "datum" methods: (no problem at cross-imps) Law 78B: 20 - 40 = 1 50 - 80 = 2 ... what about -19.999 - +19.999, 40.0001 - 49.9999, ... datum score diff imp ... 415 400 -15 ? 415 430 +15 ? 415 460 +45 ? ... datum score diff imp ... 413.33 400 -13.33 ? 413.33 430 +16.67 ? 413.33 460 +46.67 ? ... Yvan. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 11:19:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:19:51 +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 LAA29440 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:19:46 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 02 Oct 1998 11:24:39 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 11:24:17 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring 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 Others have adequately described the pros and cons of various Butler scoring methods. One approach we have looked at for a Butler scored swiss pairs event is to use =22Leaders Butler=22. The idea is to use the scores from say the leading ten tables, applying whatever method you like to those scores (discard top and bottom scores and average the remainder).=20 The rationale behind this is that the datum supposedly reflects =22good=22 bridge at the top of the field. A top pair that has a cold non-vul game bid against them (score -420) gets annoyed when the datum turns out to be -300 because of all the -170 scores from the lower end of the field using a standard butler scoring method. I don=27t really know if this is =22best=22 for swiss pairs, as we = haven=27t actually run an event using this method due to computer scoring software limitations :( Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> David Stevenson 1/10/98 21:51:36 >>> Which method is best? Why? Please can you just answer for which is best for Butler scoring: I can answer my correspondent adequately about the benefits of cross-imping. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /=5C /=5C Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 =40 =40 ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm =7E From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 15:23:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:23:19 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA29950 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-163.access.net.il [192.116.198.163]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id HAA26706; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:25:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <361463D7.43C51DAD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 07:25:43 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: David Burn , David Stevenson , Bridge Laws 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 I agree with Grattan's approach bellow , but... The scope of the laws is to "redress damage" ; according to this scope , law 75A5 says that "...after the criminal paid his duty to the council , he is entitled to minimize his own damage..........." The real question is IMO not what law 75A5 says , but the relationship with the irregularity .....As I pointed before Rich couldn't bid 1H with that significance , if the BOOR wasn't there ...... I'll go back to my thread defining the UI ...... there is the dog buried !!! Dany Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > > ---------- > > From: David Burn > > To: Grattan > > Cc: David Stevenson ; > >Bridge Laws > > Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced > > Date: 30 September 1998 22:25 > > > > L72A5 has been cited as giving the player, in the instance under > > discussion, carte blanche to bid what he liked. But the Law says: > > > > "...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..." > > > ++++ The point has been raised previously and I know of no > ruling upon the question at Zonal or World level. However, if you > follow this line, there is equally nothing in the laws concerning > the period between the infraction and completion of payment > of the penalty and there is nothing to suggest an impropriety can > exist in making any legal call or play in this period. Nor is there > anything in the laws to forbid a call or play that would be legal > otherwise. So the specific consideration, in the case that led to > this thread, is that no violation of law occurred although one or > two people have desired to visualise one and the appeals > committee appeared to say that whilst they could not point to > such a violation one surely must exist - which is an approach to > the laws that I have not previously encountered. > On the general point, the common practice is to treat the > law as considering a penalty paid when it is imposed (rather than > assessed) and personally I believe this was the likely intention > when the law was instituted. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 15:27:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:27:27 +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 PAA29965 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:27:21 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-13.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.13]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA19981; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3614637F.B53A7F07@idt.net> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:24:15 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Butler scoring References: <009401bded7f$ce3ee5e0$ad2d63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This Summer I had occasion to play in the UK twice, once in Bristol (in a Polish Church, as I recall) and at the Young Chelsea Club in London. In Bristol, we were N/S, but on the first round (and maybe the 2nd too), we played E/W. At the Young Chelsea, we were E/W, but played a round or two in the N/S seat. When I inquired about this movement, which I have never experienced in the US, I was told it was so that they could compute an overall winner. This did not really make any sense to me, and I never did find out the rationale. I wonder if someone (John Probst?) could give me some info. At both games, the scoring was some form of IMP pairs. Thanks, Irv Kostal David Burn wrote: > > One year, in the not too distant past, our national Selection > Committee debated what would be the best method of scoring a > Much Snipped to save bandwidth :) The same is true of scoring systems at bridge; whatever model > you propose, it will be trivial to construct a counter-example under > which that model does not work. But that does not matter, for all > models have this in common when applied to a sufficiently large number > of boards: If you play well enough, you win. If you don't, you don't. > > Should this debate continue, please could it do so somewhere else? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 20:28:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:28:28 +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 UAA00609 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:28:21 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29995 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:31:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Law 62C Heading Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer (south) in a notrump contract is running a solid diamond suit from dummy. On the third round of the suit East plays a spade. Declarer leads the fourth round and East finds a diamond before he plays to this trick. So the revoke is not established (L63A1) and the spade becomes a penalty card. Declarer, knowing that the penalty card is about to vanish, wants to change his play so that he can take advantage of the penalty card (Lead a heart to the Ace in his hand and then take a spade finesse that must now succeed, and continue diamonds after that.) My reading is that he may do so (L62C1). If I am right, two reasonably experienced club directors were confused by the heading to L62C ("Subsequent cards played to the trick") and could not find a relevant Law. An ACBL Director asked about this incident also had the same problem. I know the headings are not part of the Laws, but shouldn't this one be changed? -- 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 Fri Oct 2 21:22:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:22:59 +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 VAA00795 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:22:52 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-70.uunet.be [194.7.13.70]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22563 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:26:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3614B8F5.F7ED6A4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:28:53 +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: Re: butler, what about -19.999 - +19.999, ... References: <1.5.4.32.19981002001415.00dc4f2c@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > > Another problem with all "datum" methods: > (no problem at cross-imps) > > Law 78B: > 20 - 40 = 1 > 50 - 80 = 2 > ... > what about -19.999 - +19.999, 40.0001 - 49.9999, ... > > datum score diff imp > ... > 415 400 -15 ? > 415 430 +15 ? > 415 460 +45 ? > ... > > datum score diff imp > ... > 413.33 400 -13.33 ? > 413.33 430 +16.67 ? > 413.33 460 +46.67 ? > ... > In Bastille this is easy = 0 = 0 15 = 0.5 45 = 1.5 so 13.33 = 0.5/15*13.33 = 0.444 > Yvan. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 21:22:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:22:58 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00794 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:22:51 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-70.uunet.be [194.7.13.70]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22559 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:26:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3614B853.6D840B1C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:26:11 +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: Re: Butler scoring References: <199810012156.RAA19381@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "David Burn" > > And do you know what? The > > first three places were unchanged under every single scoring method - > > This is an excellent caution against getting overexcited about scoring > methods. Nevertheless, there is one example of a pair _losing_ several > thousand dollars when a score correction _added_ 20 points to their > score on a board. (They should have avoided making that overtrick!) I > think Herman has the story in one of his scoring pages. > Hamman-Wolff vs Leufkens-Westra no less ! > I submit that a scoring method where the above can happen (Butler with > a single winner) is undesirable, and I further submit that there are > numerous scoring methods where it cannot happen (cross-IMPs being > perhaps the most obvious). And Bastille, to stay in the Butler scheme of things. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 21:23:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:23:27 +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 VAA00823 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:23:20 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-70.uunet.be [194.7.13.70]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22549; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:26:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3614B7DE.5041A7C2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:24:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Butler scoring References: <199810012146.RAA19353@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > On a related topic, I have been meaning for some time to suggest an > entirely new scoring method. Is that an appropriate topic for BLML, > or should I post in RGB? Anyone having an opinion is invited to email. I don't think anyone who is not a director should care about this. So blml it should be. David B will have to use the delete key. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 22:12:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:12:29 +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 WAA00950 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:12:24 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.42]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981002121514.BLUQ1136@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:15:14 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Law 62C Heading Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:58:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdedfb$f6986a80$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 It seems that you directors were being to fine here, or having trouble reading. The heading of Law 62 'Correction of a Revoke' should lead them to 62C. Grattan may wish to address the headings, but I see no problem with them in this case. Rick From: Richard Lighton Subject: Law 62C Heading >Declarer (south) in a notrump contract is running a solid diamond >suit from dummy. > >On the third round of the suit East plays a spade. Declarer leads >the fourth round and East finds a diamond before he plays to this >trick. So the revoke is not established (L63A1) and the spade becomes >a penalty card. Declarer, knowing that the penalty card is about to >vanish, wants to change his play so that he can take advantage of >the penalty card (Lead a heart to the Ace in his hand and then take >a spade finesse that must now succeed, and continue diamonds after >that.) > >My reading is that he may do so (L62C1). > >If I am right, two reasonably experienced club directors were >confused by the heading to L62C ("Subsequent cards played to the >trick") and could not find a relevant Law. An ACBL Director asked >about this incident also had the same problem. > >I know the headings are not part of the Laws, but shouldn't this >one be changed? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 2 22:54:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:54:13 +1000 Received: from networksgy.com (www.networksgy.com [208.130.114.177]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01105 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:54:02 +1000 Received: from beepatnet by networksgy.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29668; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 08:54:43 +0300 Message-ID: <000001bdedfb$d8eb5ec0$32177bdf@beepatnet.beepat> From: "John Mac Gregor" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler scoring Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:35:32 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BDED59.82451680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BDED59.82451680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Strange that somebody from ACBL Land has not expounded on the benefits = provided by their scoring program. Besides the Butler method where you can control = the number of scores discarded and the cross-imp method (Total Imps is the phrase they = use), a third option is what they call average imps. This method simply takes your = total imps and divides that by the number of comparisons made. Although you end up = with a lot of fractions in the results, it is easier for the players to recognize = where they went wrong as the numbers closely appoximate a head-on comparison. One of the = disadvantages or advantages is that any strange results on a board remain in the game for = comparison. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BDED59.82451680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Strange that somebody from ACBL Land = has not=20 expounded on the benefits provided by
their scoring program.  Besides = the Butler=20 method where you can control the number of
scores discarded and the cross-imp = method (Total=20 Imps is the phrase they use),  a third
option is what they call average = imps. =20 This method simply takes your total imps and
divides that by the number of = comparisons=20 made.  Although you end up with a lot of
fractions in the results,  it = is easier for=20 the players to recognize where they went wrong
as the numbers closely appoximate a = head-on=20 comparison.  One of the disadvantages or
advantages is that any strange = results on a=20 board remain in the game for comparison.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BDED59.82451680-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 02:14:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 02:14:41 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04068 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 02:14:34 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA16820; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.77) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016794; Fri Oct 2 11:16:41 1998 Received: by har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDEDFE.241B7FE0@har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:14:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDEDFE.241B7FE0@har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Mailing List , Richard Lighton , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: RE: Law 62C Heading Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:57:04 -0400 Encoding: 47 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It does seem that if the Law is to apply to all subsequent cards played whether to the revoke trick or in leading to the following one elimination of the words "to trick" from the heading would clarify. ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 7:58 AM To: Richard Lighton; Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law 62C Heading It seems that you directors were being to fine here, or having trouble reading. The heading of Law 62 'Correction of a Revoke' should lead them to 62C. Grattan may wish to address the headings, but I see no problem with them in this case. Rick From: Richard Lighton Subject: Law 62C Heading >Declarer (south) in a notrump contract is running a solid diamond >suit from dummy. > >On the third round of the suit East plays a spade. Declarer leads >the fourth round and East finds a diamond before he plays to this >trick. So the revoke is not established (L63A1) and the spade becomes >a penalty card. Declarer, knowing that the penalty card is about to >vanish, wants to change his play so that he can take advantage of >the penalty card (Lead a heart to the Ace in his hand and then take >a spade finesse that must now succeed, and continue diamonds after >that.) > >My reading is that he may do so (L62C1). > >If I am right, two reasonably experienced club directors were >confused by the heading to L62C ("Subsequent cards played to the >trick") and could not find a relevant Law. An ACBL Director asked >about this incident also had the same problem. > >I know the headings are not part of the Laws, but shouldn't this >one be changed? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 02:21:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 02:21:11 +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 CAA04104 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 02:21:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-137.access.net.il [192.116.198.137]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA12719; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:24:03 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3614FE15.59A2E24C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 18:23:49 +0200 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: Law 62C Heading References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Rich "Headings" means the titles , the BOLD-letterd under the laws' number .It doesn't include any word in the paragraphs ..!!! This is simple and no problem - the declarer is allowed to do what you told , without any trouble . i don't understand what was the problem of the ACBL TDs... Cheers Dany Richard Lighton wrote: > > Declarer (south) in a notrump contract is running a solid diamond > suit from dummy. > > On the third round of the suit East plays a spade. Declarer leads > the fourth round and East finds a diamond before he plays to this > trick. So the revoke is not established (L63A1) and the spade becomes > a penalty card. Declarer, knowing that the penalty card is about to > vanish, wants to change his play so that he can take advantage of > the penalty card (Lead a heart to the Ace in his hand and then take > a spade finesse that must now succeed, and continue diamonds after > that.) > > My reading is that he may do so (L62C1). > > If I am right, two reasonably experienced club directors were > confused by the heading to L62C ("Subsequent cards played to the > trick") and could not find a relevant Law. An ACBL Director asked > about this incident also had the same problem. > > I know the headings are not part of the Laws, but shouldn't this > one be changed? > > -- > 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 Oct 3 03:22:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 03:22:25 +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 DAA04238 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 03:22:17 +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 NAA10857 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810021725.NAA22964@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199810012146.RAA19353@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:46:13 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Butler scoring Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> Another type of statistic of this ilk is the "mode." That's the >> score that had the most occurrances. It'd produce the same results >> as the median in the example above. It is even more unstable than >> the median. > Technically, I think the mode is _more_ stable, not less, but it is > _much_ less sensitive. That means you need far more results in order > for the mode to be meaningful. It might be the best statistic if you > were running a very large game, say 100 tables or more. (Mode is used, > in fact, for a closely analogous purpose in astronomical imaging, but > there we have upwards of 10^5 results.) The mode won't work in bridge because of uneven distributions. If 4S goes down 40% of the time and otherwise makes exactly four, the mode will be +620. If 4S goes down 40% of the time but is equally likely to make four or five if it makes, the mode will be -100. This will be a problem no matter how large the field is. The mode is normally used with either a continuous distribution or a discrete distribution which approximates a continuous distribution. -- 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 Oct 3 03:37:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 03:37:19 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA04285 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 03:37:12 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id NAA27873 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:40:32 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA21597; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810021740.NAA21597@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Psyche when partner is silenced To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:40:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199809292309.TAA17696@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Sep 29, 98 07:09:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> 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? >> Steve wrote: >>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.) Steve - I dont agree. I reserve the phrase "could have known" for situations which are much more explicit. For example, if declarer held: AK Kx xx AKQxxxx and opened *1D* out of turn, and then corrected it to 3NT, I would adjust, since it is clear from the 1D bid that declarer is trying something nefarious. But if he opened 1C in either your example or mine, I would be much more confident that it was an honest mistake. I think adjustments should generally be reserved for situations where it is at least mildly suspected that there is some malice aforethought. In the multi case, nobody is claiming that the multi bidder opened out of turn *on purpose* because he knew he could bar partner and then make a free psyche. He found himself in a situation, and created an on-the-spot creative solution. As someone else wrote, it was a one-time coup. Also, to be honest, I reject the premise - I dont believe that it is good bridge on this hand to bar partner and set the contract to 3NT without consultation. So I dont think declarer "could have known" something which I dont think is true. However, once he finds himself in that situation, he should make the best of it and bid 3NT. To not allow him that option would be wrong. -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 08:42:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 08:42:06 +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 IAA05112 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 08:42:00 +1000 Received: from modem70.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.70] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zPDwt-0000TC-00; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:45:20 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Richard Lighton" , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: Re: Law 62C Heading Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:45:01 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: Craig Senior > > Date: 02 October 1998 15:57 > > It does seem that if the Law is to apply to all subsequent cards played > whether to the revoke trick or in leading to the following one elimination > of the words "to trick" from the heading would clarify. > > ---------- > From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 7:58 AM > To: Richard Lighton; Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Law 62C Heading > > It seems that you directors were being to fine here, or having trouble > reading. The heading of Law 62 'Correction of a Revoke' should lead them > to > 62C. Grattan may wish to address the headings, but I see no problem with > them in this case. > > Rick > From: Richard Lighton > Subject: Law 62C Heading > > ++++Well, yes! I might indeed want to address the headings, and more besides! Law 62 is one of the finer examples of lethargic drafting in the book. It should run wall-to-wall between the commission of the revoke and its establishment. It does, but the seams are lumpy and the Director needs to watch where he puts his feet. About those headings. They are put there as signposts and I would prefer a layout which had the signposts in the margins of the text and not as headings. The law is to be read without them, something which does not come easily to a proportion of Directors but which their training should cover. And what are the headings? This is better seen in laws like 57 and 58. Here the text runs on through the law, passing by the headings. We see that the term 'heading' refers, for instance, to "1. Highest Card" and to "2. More cards visible". Going back to Law 62C we thus note that not only "C. Subsequent cards played to the trick" is a heading, but also "1. By Non-offending side". So in reading the law for its substance we must ignore all of these and we must draw no inference from them in clarifying in our minds what is the law. Add to this my wish that this law be re-written with a less inferential specification of the duration of its provisions, as we might also re-write appropriately Law 72A5. I could add that my option would be to provide guidance notes for the Director alongside the basic text of each law, in the book, dealing with principles not with qualitative judgements, and with the authority of official interpretation. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 09:35:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 09:35:58 +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 JAA05202 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 09:35:52 +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 TAA00017 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 19:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA01014 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 19:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 19:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810022339.TAA01014@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Originally I was going to write this little essay in response to David Stevenson's article on why we don't need a definition of convention. Some time (!) has passed since his article appeared, and I see the main point is even more generally applicable. I am not an ice hockey fan, so the following is based on sports coverage in our hometown newspaper. The local team was involved in the flap, and it is quite possible that the coverage was biased or that I have remembered something wrong. That said, I don't think any mistakes will affect my conclusion. It seems that the written rules for ice hockey (as played in the NHL, where "National" means mostly Canadian) say that an apparent goal should be disallowed if any offensive player was in the "crease" at the time the puck went into the net. (The crease is a small, marked area in front of the net.) Last fall, a year ago now, the NHL head office told the referees that they should waive this rule if they could ascertain that the offensive player in the crease did not affect the play. The referees generally followed this instruction during the season. Well, you can guess the rest of the story. The puck came in from the goalkeeper's left, and an offensive player had his foot about 100 mm into the crease on the far right. Clearly there was no possible effect on the play. Nevertheless, the referee looked at the video replay (as permitted), determined that the foot was in the crease, and disallowed the goal. This happened in the post-season playoffs, and it changed the result. (That goal would have been the game and series winner, but instead the other team won, and the team whose goal was disallowed was eliminated.) As you can imagine, there was considerable publicity and bad feeling (perhaps an understatement) about this ruling. It seems to me that the whole problem was the divergence between the written and the "actual" rule. If the written rule had been consistently enforced (with no "interpretation" from the league office), nobody would have complained about the ruling. (The player who stupidly put his foot into the crease might have gotten some flak!) Or if the written rule required the referee to use judgment about whether the play was affected, then at most this would have been a bad "judgment call" by an official. It happens all the time, and players and fans complain a bit but accept that it happens. (Cf. the final game of the NBA playoffs.) More likely in this case, the ruling would have been to allow the goal, since the video was completely clear. Either way, there would never have been the outrage that this ruling generated, and certainly nobody would have blamed the sport itself or the league office. So my plea is this: let's enforce the rules as they are written and not as we might prefer them to be. If there is something we don't like, we can all flame Ton and Grattan (sorry about that, gentlemen), but in the meantime, let's try to figure out what the rules say and adjudicate accordingly. If that means somebody "gets away with something" because there is no clear rule against it, I think we are better off accepting that than making up a new rule or new interpretation that seems to us to produce a more "equitable" result. I have another plea, too. This one is addressed to Ton, Grattan, and other LC members. Let's make the rules as clear and simple as possible unless there is a very good reason for something more complex. It seems to me that some of the changes in the last couple of revisions are fairer in the abstract but are just too hard for most TD's to apply in practice. For uncommon infractions, how about relaxing the attempt to restore equity in favor of an automatic penalty that fully compensates the NOS? Sure, this will be harsher than necessary for the OS, but if the ruling is clear and completely automatic, I don't think there will be much complaint. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the difficulty of applying a complex law ought to be a factor in deciding whether or not to adopt it. Of course frequency is another consideration. I'm one of the advocates for a more complex L16, and I have to argue that frequency and fairness outweigh simplicity in this specific case. Perhaps I'm wrong. OK, enough ranting. And in case it's not clear, I have the utmost respect and appreciation for Grattan and Ton and the work they do, and I hope no one will take any of the above comments as indicating otherwise. Disagreement is to be expected, but if the above is disagreeable, that wasn't intentional. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 11:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 11:30:48 +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 LAA05471 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 11:30:42 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.44.29]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981003013334.GMNU19549@jay-apfelbaum>; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:33:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000801bdee6d$73eb7a60$1d2c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:30:46 -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 Amen!! Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 7:45 PM Subject: clear rules >So my plea is this: let's enforce the rules as they are written and not >as we might prefer them to be. If there is something we don't like, we >can all flame Ton and Grattan (sorry about that, gentlemen), but in the >meantime, let's try to figure out what the rules say and adjudicate >accordingly. If that means somebody "gets away with something" because >there is no clear rule against it, I think we are better off accepting >that than making up a new rule or new interpretation that seems to us >to produce a more "equitable" result. > >I have another plea, too. This one is addressed to Ton, Grattan, and >other LC members. Let's make the rules as clear and simple as possible >unless there is a very good reason for something more complex. It >seems to me that some of the changes in the last couple of revisions >are fairer in the abstract but are just too hard for most TD's to apply >in practice. For uncommon infractions, how about relaxing the attempt >to restore equity in favor of an automatic penalty that fully >compensates the NOS? Sure, this will be harsher than necessary for the >OS, but if the ruling is clear and completely automatic, I don't think >there will be much complaint. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the >difficulty of applying a complex law ought to be a factor in deciding >whether or not to adopt it. Of course frequency is another >consideration. I'm one of the advocates for a more complex L16, and I >have to argue that frequency and fairness outweigh simplicity in this >specific case. Perhaps I'm wrong. > >OK, enough ranting. And in case it's not clear, I have the utmost >respect and appreciation for Grattan and Ton and the work they do, and >I hope no one will take any of the above comments as indicating >otherwise. Disagreement is to be expected, but if the above is >disagreeable, that wasn't intentional. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 13:31:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:31:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA05697 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:31:24 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zPISw-0006h9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 03:34:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:16:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: butler, what about -19.999 - +19.999, ... In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19981002001415.00dc4f2c@worldcom.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1.5.4.32.19981002001415.00dc4f2c@worldcom.ch>, Yvan Calame writes >Another problem with all "datum" methods: >(no problem at cross-imps) > >Law 78B: >20 - 40 = 1 >50 - 80 = 2 >... >what about -19.999 - +19.999, 40.0001 - 49.9999, ... > >datum score diff imp >... >415 400 -15 ? >415 430 +15 ? >415 460 +45 ? >... > >datum score diff imp >... >413.33 400 -13.33 ? >413.33 430 +16.67 ? >413.33 460 +46.67 ? >... > >Yvan. > The EBU rounds the datum to the nearest 10, with 5's rounded down 5 x 630 and 5 x 600 gives an imp to the 630's (Datum 610) I disagree with this and change the scales to be: 0-14.99, 15-44.99 etc This awards an imp to both scores and seems more obvious. It was actually this particular score which persuaded me to do it this way. (but then we do our own thing at the YC anyway and it is *MY* program :) There is some justification in that the zero score spans 29.99 and the one imps score spans 30, and the scale is logarithmic. -- 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 Oct 3 13:51:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:51:33 +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 NAA05716 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:51:25 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.213] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zPIl6-0002Ce-00; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:53:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:54:42 +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 was not going to start this ball rolling, but I am pleased that Steve has done so, for it gives us all a chance to step back from the detail and consider for a moment why the Laws of bridge are as they are, and in what spirit they should be interpreted. There are, in my view, two types of "rule" in any game. Type 1 rules are the purely mechanical rules that define the game we are playing. Examples of Type 1 rules in bridge are: play is clockwise; spades outrank hearts; kings beat queens; a contract is an undertaking to win a specified number of tricks greater than six; bids at the eight level are not permitted; the penalty for an undoubled vulnerable undertrick is 100 points. Type 2 rules are the ones that cause us problems, for they are the rules that define what constitutes "fair" and "unfair" play in accordance with a moral code that we are presumed to have in common (this presumption being tenuous at best and false at worst). Examples of Type 2 rules in bridge are - well, I won't quote at length, but Law 16B and most of the "Proprieties" are in this category. Thus: you may not bid 1H over 1S because of a type 1 rule. You "may not" remove a hesitant penalty double because of a type 2 rule (unless your hand is such that to fail to remove would be "illogical" - a type 2 decision). To put the matter succinctly, type 1 rules are "objective" - whether or not a player's action is a breach of a type 1 rule can be determined extrinsically, without reference to judgmental questions. Type 2 rules are "subjective" - whether or not a player's action is a breach of a type 2 rule cannot be determined by reference to purely external "facts", but requires an authority to make a subjective judgment which, in the worst case, may vary dramatically depending on the "authority" that happens to be in force at the time. Now, this may be said without (I hope!) fear of contradiction. If the rules of a game are entirely of type 1, then the game is both easy to understand (from the point of view of players and spectators alike) and trivial to administer. To exactly the extent that a game is played according to rules of type 2, that game will be difficult for players to understand (even more difficult for spectators to follow), and difficult to administer with any degree of consistency. In short: the more type 2 rules a game has, the harder it will be both to learn and to play, the less it will be comprehensible to the casual spectator, and the less chance there is that the administration of the game will be (a) consistent and (b) fair - whatever that means. Bridge at the moment suffers from this very serious drawback: it is played - at levels from the lowest to the highest - almost entirely according to rules of type 2. The type 1 rules are common to just about every card game that any schoolgirl might learn; anyone who has played any kind of trick-taking game could, with a little effort, play and enjoy bridge. The type 2 rules - "you bid because your partner hesitated!", "if you'd alerted that, I would have done something else!" - are sufficient in themselves to put off any but the most dedicated, and in practice end up putting off a fair number of even them. Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness? My own view is that bridge players have an unreasonable tendency to forget that they are playing a game "like any other". In just about any other game or sport, the rules are mostly of type 1, and the players are content to abide by them. The bowler at cricket who oversteps the crease and is "no-balled" by the umpire does not round on that official and demand to know whether he was being accused of cheating. The baseball pitcher whose best fastball is not called a strike does not (at least, not so any official could hear him) demand to know what happened to the umpire's guide dog. The chess player who touches a piece moves it, without enquiring of the referee whether any rational player could have wanted to move the piece in question. Only at bridge do we demand "justice", "equity", the "right" to undo what we have done on the grounds that we didn't mean it. And only at bridge, for some bizarre reason, is that non-existent right granted - as if it had any place at all in what is "only a game". I could go on, and no doubt I will do at some future time. For the moment, I will comment on Steve Willner's example - for, although I approve whole-heartedly of his desire to call for "clear rules", I am not sure that his view and mine of what constitutes "clarity" would lead us to the same conclusion. I once argued, semi-seriously, that the penalty for a revoke should be death. If this were implemented, then the game would very shortly be played only by those who could follow suit, and the indescribable shambles that is the current revoke law would cease to be relevant. Steve wrote: >It seems that the written rules for ice hockey (as played in the NHL, >where "National" means mostly Canadian) say that an apparent goal >should be disallowed if any offensive player was in the "crease" at the >time the puck went into the net. (The crease is a small, marked area >in front of the net.) Last fall, a year ago now, the NHL head office >told the referees that they should waive this rule if they could >ascertain that the offensive player in the crease did not affect the >play. The referees generally followed this instruction during the >season. This instruction was, in my view, asinine. It replaced a type 1 rule ("if you're in the crease, someone else on your side can't score a goal") with a type 2 rule ("if you're in the crease, we might or might not take the view that your presence there mattered, and depending on our view, we might or might not disallow a goal that your side scores"). You can see why they did it, of course. If somebody hits a genius shot from a mile away which goes in the goal, they "deserve" to score a goal and should not be "robbed" of it by some arbitrary circumstance such as a random attacker hovering around the net. The genius shot "would have worked" whether the other guy was there or not, so it's "only fair" that the goal should count. But this is to ignore the reason why the rule was there in the first place. I don't know anything about ice hockey, but presumably the notion was that if some attacker were in the crease at the time a shot was fired, his presence would unduly distract the goal-minder. Now, this type 1 rule ("it is not allowed to stand within a certain distance of the goalie unless you've got the puck") ought in no circumstances to be overridden by a type 2 rule ("you can, regardless of the above rule, stand where you like as long as the goalie could not, in the opinion of the referee, reasonably be distracted"). >Well, you can guess the rest of the story. The puck came in from the >goalkeeper's left, and an offensive player had his foot about 100 mm >into the crease on the far right. Clearly there was no possible effect >on the play. If you say so. I, who know nothing about ice hockey but have read what you have written, might wonder whether the goalie could not have been caught in two minds. When the puck was fired in, his first concern would have been to stop in from going in the goal - but he might also have been worried that his attempt to do this would present the attacker on the right with an easy shot. If that attacker was in a place where he legally should not have been, the goalie was placed under "undue" pressure in terms of how he actually dealt with the immediate danger. Presumably, the rule which said that no goal would count if another attacker were in the crease at the time had to do with the "unfairness" of putting the goalie under such pressure (though it does not matter what the reason for the law actually was). If so, whether 100mm either way "affected the play" in the actual case is wholly irrelevant. >Nevertheless, the referee looked at the video replay (as >permitted), Good man. Why, in the name of the Seven Works of Mercy, should it not be permitted? Why, indeed, should it not be compulsory? > determined that the foot was in the crease, and disallowed >the goal. This happened in the post-season playoffs, and it changed >the result. (That goal would have been the game and series winner, but >instead the other team won, and the team whose goal was disallowed was >eliminated.) As you can imagine, there was considerable publicity and >bad feeling (perhaps an understatement) about this ruling. As you can imagine by now, I can't imagine why. > >It seems to me that the whole problem was the divergence between the >written and the "actual" rule. There is no difference. There should have been no difference. The written rules are the actual rules. >If the written rule had been >consistently enforced (with no "interpretation" from the league >office), nobody would have complained about the ruling. Granted. The desire to "interpret", to "interpolate", to decide that a rule does not mean what it says, does immeasurable harm to any game. >(The player >who stupidly put his foot into the crease might have gotten some >flak!) Or if the written rule required the referee to use judgment >about whether the play was affected, then at most this would have been >a bad "judgment call" by an official. Insofar as the rules require "judgment calls" from officials, they are bad (type 2) rules. >It happens all the time, and >players and fans complain a bit but accept that it happens. (Cf. the >final game of the NBA playoffs.) More likely in this case, the ruling >would have been to allow the goal, since the video was completely >clear. Well, the video made it clear that the goal ought to have been disallowed under the rule which said that if someone was where he should not have been at the time the puck went in the goal, it was no goal. The video might have made it clear that the guy in the "wrong" place could not affect the play. But, as I have said, the rule which says that you're not allowed to be in such a place at such a time is there because you might (not "did", but "might") unfairly distract the goalie. >Either way, there would never have been the outrage that this >ruling generated, and certainly nobody would have blamed the sport >itself or the league office. Yes there would, yes they would. A (type 1) rule was written, under which the goal would not have been allowed. Then a (type 2) directive was issued under which the goal might or might not have been allowed, and the rot set in. The result of this was that nobody - players, spectators, officials - knew what the rules were any more. This has already happened in bridge to the extent that this mailing list exists, which is about as bad as you can get. There is not, I am prepared to bet a lot of money, anything called "Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List", nor should there be. Yet we sit here as though we fulfilled some useful function, whereas what is fundamentally wrong with our game is that BLML exists at all. The lunatics have not merely taken over the asylum, but have built an asylum where none previously existed, and have pronounced everyone outside it to be insane. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 17:49:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:49:43 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA06013 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:49:35 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-161.access.net.il [192.116.198.161]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id JAA22476; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 09:52:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3615D7BE.7E669F26@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 09:52:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trick won.....but not References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with the very simple ruling decided by most of the contributors.... Only one remark : please check the first trick : if you find an Ace or KingKong which is twice in the same packet..... I don't laugh and don't dream (maybe nightmare..) - it happened to me at least twice each year , even at national level tournaments... Dany Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA 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.... > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 18:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 18:56:06 +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 SAA06094 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 18:56:00 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-247.uunet.be [194.7.9.247]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24717 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 10:59:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3615ED69.95DA95F3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:24:57 +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: Re: clear rules References: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > This has already happened in bridge to the extent that this mailing > list exists, which is about as bad as you can get. There is not, I am > prepared to bet a lot of money, anything called "Ice Hockey Laws > Mailing List", nor should there be. Yet we sit here as though we > fulfilled some useful function, whereas what is fundamentally wrong > with our game is that BLML exists at all. The lunatics have not merely > taken over the asylum, but have built an asylum where none previously > existed, and have pronounced everyone outside it to be insane. LOL !!! And quite true as well !! Herman, lunatic and happy about it ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 22:06:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:06:53 +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 WAA06301 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:06:45 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h25.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id QAA29609; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:10:04 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3616AEE7.2D84@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 16:10:32 -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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_8.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_8.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) At the beginning of my post I would like to congratulate John (MadDog) Probst with the most popular thread in BLML: when I am writing this post there have been sent 192 posts on the theme. It happened never before in BLML. Steve Willner wrote: "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." Nicely said - but the main word in the sentence is "legal result". The most "lawyering" word. I wish I had knew what is it "legal" without "lawyering". Or may be it was a kind of sarcasm?:) When one uses words as "legal" it is saying at basis (and about) lawyering subject, isn't it?:) Indeed - legal result must stand. But the problem is that (as it seems to us) "6 Diamonds, down one" is not legal result. "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?"" Yeah, you missed sacrifice - but you received even more: positive score instead of negative in sacrifice. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: "If we can regulate psyches of our strongest bid (illegally in my view) we can do this too." I really do not understand the word "illegally" in this context. It was legally decided by the only appropriated body: WBFLC. Anybody may say "wrong decision", but illegally? Or (it may happen too) I do not understand English enough - then my fault, sorry. Then I can easily imagine that I do not understand a lot of arguments, especially - from the author of the post and of the thread. It's a pity. "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?" IMO - neither TD nor AC should teach player to play. Moreover - why the decision that provided to gross win might be called as "losing bridge"? And moreover - IMO it was almost obvious that to make partner silent was advantageous for the player with zero high-card-tricks and at most 4 playing tricks. Because it was the highest probability that the hand belonged to opponents. And that psyche would work against them only. It is quite winning bridge - not losing. And it does not matter - it "worked" or did not: it could work. "Suppose I opened out of turn through carelessness and was reduced to a lead director which worked. Well done." "No, it must be right to try to maximize one's score, given the situation one is in and the applicable legal constraints. Otherwise the game is not very interesting." Yeah - if there were enough probability that you might (and was ready to) pay for your decision: minus 800 for doubled contract, or minus 750 for missing slam. "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)" It seems to me: it means that you are ready to accuse severely the player in case of secondary doing and to make him free - in case of firstly doing. Why such sharp change in estimation of the same doing? I guess that in depth of Spirit you have the same feeling as me about estimation of incident. Otherwise you suggested no more than adjusting and (possibly) several PP for repeating case. David Burn wrote: "L72A5 has been cited as giving the player, in the instance under discussion, carte blanche to bid what he liked. But the Law says: "...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..." Note also, Grattan, that the Law does not say "the offenders may appropriately make any call or play..." An oversight, perhaps :)" And moreover - IMO that in the discussed case there were complex infraction: BOOT, then unriscky bid 1Heart, - the whole incident was made in condition of L72B1, that means "could know"-case. And that's why L72A5 is irrelevant for the case. Grattan wrote: "The point has been raised previously and I know of no ruling upon the question at Zonal or World level. However, if you follow this line, there is equally nothing in the laws concerning the period between the infraction and completion of payment of the penalty and there is nothing to suggest an impropriety can exist in making any legal call or play in this period. Nor is there anything in the laws to forbid a call or play that would be legal otherwise. So the specific consideration, in the case that led to this thread, is that no violation of law occurred although one or two people have desired to visualise one and the appeals committee appeared to say that whilst they could not point to such a violation one surely must exist - which is an approach to the laws that I have not previously encountered." Yeah - and I'd like to repeat once more that there happened complex incident: BOOT followed with low-level and unrisky-bid in condition of "could-know-in-BOOT-time" case. Sorry for repeating but it were a lot of repeating of opposed side that I dare to repeat my position too:) Because there may be readers that missed it before. David Metcalf wrote: "I think adjustments should generally be reserved for situations where it is at least mildly suspected that there is some malice aforethought. In the multi case, nobody is claiming that the multi bidder opened out of turn *on purpose* because he knew he could bar partner and then make a free psyche. He found himself in a situation, and created an on-the-spot creative solution." It is one more attempt to connect L72B1 with deliberate (proved or potential) infraction. But so D.Burn as me wrote directly that the player is not accused at all, that we believed that he did not know or plan 1Heart bid in advance. But the Laws do not demand it - L72B1 says "could know"- in accordance with E.Kaplan's doctrine for UI-cases. And we do not have to consider if the player knew or did not - we just should consider if he could know only, without even slight accusation in unfairness. It is rather strange that there were so many posts where L72B1 was recommended to use only in cases with suspicion in deliberate infraction... Because if there were suspicion about malice aforethought - there should be disciplinary hearing instead of TD/AC adjusting. The L72B1 is served for redress of advantage purposes in any "could-know"-case. The hearing is to use for punish purposes. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 3 22:54:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:54:06 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA06368 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:53:57 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-181.access.net.il [192.116.198.181]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA01067; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:57:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36161F09.F419054@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 14:56:41 +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: clear rules References: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> <3615ED69.95DA95F3@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well gentlemen .. The question of sane or insane is a question of percentage ; it fits the bridge game - the majority decides who are inside the asylum and who are outside . Will we have a poll for it ?????? Have a nice and successful week (Both regular residents and subtenants ...and visitors !!!) Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > This has already happened in bridge to the extent that this mailing > > list exists, which is about as bad as you can get. There is not, I am > > prepared to bet a lot of money, anything called "Ice Hockey Laws > > Mailing List", nor should there be. Yet we sit here as though we > > fulfilled some useful function, whereas what is fundamentally wrong > > with our game is that BLML exists at all. The lunatics have not merely > > taken over the asylum, but have built an asylum where none previously > > existed, and have pronounced everyone outside it to be insane. > > LOL !!! > > And quite true as well !! > > Herman, lunatic and happy about it ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 4 03:17:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:17:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09330 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:17:32 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zPVMA-0004kW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:20:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:41:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <36161F09.F419054@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36161F09.F419054@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes being one of the people who knows Dave Burn well, and having been subjected to innumerable monologues muttered through his beard, over many years, I feel I should publicly congratulate him on an excellent discourse on the causes of many of the problems which beset our game (and which incidentally help pay my mortgage). Well done Dave >Well gentlemen .. > >The question of sane or insane is a question of percentage ; >it fits the bridge game - the majority decides who are inside >the asylum and who are outside . >Will we have a poll for it ?????? > >Have a nice and successful week >(Both regular residents and subtenants ...and visitors !!!) please reserve me a 40' pole in the main hall. I shall perch there, giggle hysterically and enjoy the spectacle. :)) >> >> Herman, lunatic and happy about it ! >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- 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 Oct 4 04:00:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 04:00:25 +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 EAA09381 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 04:00:18 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.245]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 2072100 ; Sat, 03 Oct 1998 14:00:03 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981003140644.007bd100@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 14:06:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: clear rules Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I am all in favor of clarity in rules, and support the continuing efforts of the WBFLC to strive for clarity, I believe David Burn has both overestimated the extent to which other games truly operate by objective rules and underestimated the inherent differences between bridge and almost all other competitive games. Despite David's assertion, I would contend that bridge is, in fact, played *mostly* by type I rules, and that it seems otherwise because we who are interested in the laws focus on the effects of these rules almost exclusively as they are breached. The vast majority of hands are played without need to apply any of the type II rules. Other games and sports are also played mostly by type I rules, but they also have a large subjective element to the assessment and adjudication of infractions. In about 3', I thought of ~20 examples of this from 6 major sports (insofar as arguing those are semi-off-topic, I posted them to www.cshore.com/bills/subjective.html). Lawmakers in these sports have, in many cases, tried to reduce subjective calls, but in some cases they're unavoidable, either because intent is judged to be germane or because it's simply not possible to remove human judgment from assessment of whether an infraction has occurred. This is not to say that it's not worth examining whether certain bridge laws might best be treated without regard to judgment of intent, e.g. It was, imo, wise for Kaplan et al. to push for allowing directors and committees to deal with violations of the proprieties just as with violations of the other laws. It is also worth examining, e.g., whether seeking to maintain some sense of equity for the non-offending side at the expense of simplicity is worthwhile. I am less concerned than some, e.g., that restricting the options of a player who has bid out of turn has the potential to remove any shred of imagination from the game of bridge; there are plenty of opportunities for imagination elsewhere. L64A1 stand out as an example of a simple law with a simple penalty that may often seem unduly harsh to the offenders. I don't think the game is severely compromised by the uncompromising nature of this law. However, there is an element of bridge for which I have thus far been unable to find a parallel in other major competitive games and sports, and that is the UI issue. We can try to define, clearly and objectively, what is authorized and unauthorized information. We can try to make the laws sound as objective as possible, but the simple fact remains that the determination of whether there has been unauthorized information and whether it may have been used to advantage will require a subjective judgment. No instant replay is going to give us access to all that has gone on at the table and it most certainly is not going to tell us anything about what went on within the brain of a player who has potentially used UI, either inadvertently or deliberately. We may disagree about how such subjective judgments are made in various types of play, but as long as the game of competitive bridge is to be played based on information transmitted by the calls and plays alone, the ability to make these judgments matters. I don't think there's anything we can do to change that unless we're willing to codify procedure to the point where UI *cannot* be transmitted (this could be done, in principle, and actually is done to a certain extent by play with screens or with computers, but I don't think many of us are willing to go as far as specifying, e.g., a fixed amount of time within which a call must be made) or unless we're willing to dispense with the very notion of UI. This is simply the framework within which the Laws of the asylum will have to operate. To a lesser extent, the same arguments apply to disclosure considerations. As long as we allow pairs to bring whatever tools they wish to the table but continue to maintain a prohibition against concealed partnership understandings, there will be a subjective element to the adjudication of disclosure issues. The alternatives are for us to all play SAYC, or similarly restricted methods, or else to dispense with the principle of disclosure. The asylum has existed since before the days when allegations of unfair play were backed up with a pistol, and the asylum exists in nooks and crannies of the internet far beyond the reach of BLML or the WBFLC. We would likely be less crazy without it, but it would be no less crazy without us. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT At 04:54 AM 10/3/98 +0100, you wrote: >I was not going to start this ball rolling, but I am pleased that >Steve has done so, for it gives us all a chance to step back from the >detail and consider for a moment why the Laws of bridge are as they >are, and in what spirit they should be interpreted. [tiny ;) snip] >This has already happened in bridge to the extent that this mailing >list exists, which is about as bad as you can get. There is not, I am >prepared to bet a lot of money, anything called "Ice Hockey Laws >Mailing List", nor should there be. Yet we sit here as though we >fulfilled some useful function, whereas what is fundamentally wrong >with our game is that BLML exists at all. The lunatics have not merely >taken over the asylum, but have built an asylum where none previously >existed, and have pronounced everyone outside it to be insane. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 4 10:26:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 10:26:11 +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 KAA10120 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 10:26:05 +1000 Received: from modem42.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.170] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zPc3B-00025X-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 01:29:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Offender, Offender? Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 01:19:16 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. This week-end I am chairing appeals at an EBU event here in Liverpool. The Director in Charge is DWS. The style of competition is Swiss Pairs with each round's matches allotted by the computer on current standings. There was a case today of a declarer who led a Diamond from hand; dummy thought she heard declarer say 'play small' so placed the lowest Diamond from Dummy and fourth player covered it with a minimum winning card. Declarer then said "I asked for a small Spade" - an attempt to revoke. I do not know how David or his assistant ruled, but after appeal time had expired we discussed the case. Our conclusion was that Law 45D applied. However, David and I were not in accord as to whether fourth player was or was not an offender (Dummy is an offender). We were thinking this affects the application of Law 16C to the card that had won the trick, now withdrawn; but back home tonight I am re-reading 16C2 with some interest - it does not seem to say anything about cases where both sides have committed irregularities. ~~ Grattan ~~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 4 11:11:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 11:11:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10298 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 11:11:26 +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 VAA11571 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA01635 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:14:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810040114.VAA01635@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > There are, in my view, two types of "rule" in any game. Type 1 rules > are the purely mechanical rules that define the game we are playing. ... > Type 2 rules are the ones that cause us problems, for Thanks for the comments and the very helpful way of thinking about the problem. I don't have more to say, but I do want to clarify a couple of things that were garbled in my original message. > might wonder whether the goalie could not have been > caught in two minds. I'm not a fan either, but it was my strong impression that the goalie did not even know the player on his right was there. Of course, as you say, nobody can really know for sure. > >It seems to me that the whole problem was the divergence between the > >written and the "actual" rule. > There is no difference. Alas, there was a difference. The "modified" (unwritten interpretation) was what had been enforced all season. The problem came when the referee reverted to the written rule in the playoff game. > There should have been no difference. Yes. > The desire to "interpret", to "interpolate", to decide that a > rule does not mean what it says, does immeasurable harm to any game. That was my point. > Insofar as the rules require "judgment calls" from officials, they are > bad (type 2) rules. Sorry, my writing was careless. In American sports usage, a "judgment call" is what in bridge we would call a question of fact: a Type 1 ruling. Was the player in the crease or not? Was the ball over the plate or not? Was the bowler's arm bent or not? (Have I got that one right?) In principle, a video replay could determine the fact with almost 100% reliability, but in practice most sports rely on a fallible human who only gets one look. Mostly they do a pretty good job. As it happens, today's sports section in our local daily features two photos purporting to show umpire's error in two type 1 calls. (Also in a playoff game.) I can't tell from the pictures, myself. Nobody is very upset, anyway. Even if the calls were wrong, it's just part of the game. It is the inconsistency, or perhaps the uncertainty as to what the rules are, that ticks people off. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 4 17:23:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:23:23 +1000 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA10911 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:23:17 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p41-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.105]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA02300 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 20:26:04 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <35F0B18A.34A9@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 20:35:38 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules References: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> <3615ED69.95DA95F3@village.uunet.be> <36161F09.F419054@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > > > This has already happened in bridge to the extent that this mailing > > > list exists, which is about as bad as you can get. There is not, I am > > > prepared to bet a lot of money, anything called "Ice Hockey Laws > > > Mailing List", nor should there be. Yet we sit here as though we > > > fulfilled some useful function, whereas what is fundamentally wrong > > > with our game is that BLML exists at all. The lunatics have not merely > > > taken over the asylum, but have built an asylum where none previously > > > existed, and have pronounced everyone outside it to be insane. Unfortunately where ever you get rules you will get argument of interpretation. I umpire feild hockey (ice hockey is too violent) and the big difference is not that players don't argue ( they do very loudly and aggressively most of the time) but that you have time in bridge. When you blow the whistle in hockey you make a decision on the spot at that instant. Occasionally you are given a chance to change a decision if a player is honest and corrects you in a call but you certainly don't have a chance to take out a rule book and look it up for a particular ruling. That happens at half time or end of game with either coaches or other umpires and believe me there can be just as varied opinions as to rule interpretation in hockey as there is in Bridge. In bridge we do have written records of hands and also of appeals etc so we can discuss and review our interpretations. I believe this is good and although in the end we may not all agree as to the final result we're all learning and improving. Bridge laws will never be simple as the game, especially the bidding systems, constantly change and as that happens the laws are stretched to the limits and beyond, which is why they need discussion and revision. I sometimes feel that the true luanatics are not those on BLML but anyone who takes up directing and steps into the fray with eyes apparently open. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 4 19:25:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 19:25:53 +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 TAA11047 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 19:25:44 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA11242 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 11:29:02 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981004112627.0097e780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:26:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:19 04-10-98 +0100, you wrote: >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >This week-end I am chairing appeals at an EBU event >here in Liverpool. The Director in Charge is DWS. The >style of competition is Swiss Pairs with each round's >matches allotted by the computer on current standings. > >There was a case today of a declarer who led a Diamond >from hand; dummy thought she heard declarer say 'play >small' so placed the lowest Diamond from Dummy and >fourth player covered it with a minimum winning card. >Declarer then said "I asked for a small Spade" - an >attempt to revoke. I do not know how David or his >assistant ruled, but after appeal time had expired we >discussed the case. > >Our conclusion was that Law 45D applied. However, >David and I were not in accord as to whether fourth >player was or was not an offender (Dummy is an >offender). We were thinking this affects the application >of Law 16C to the card that had won the trick, now >withdrawn; but back home tonight I am re-reading >16C2 with some interest - it does not seem to say >anything about cases where both sides have committed >irregularities. ~~ Grattan ~~ > > > > Hi, IMHO 4th player didnt commit an irregularity. Perhaps if you interpret in 16c2 any offending side separately, then your problem is solved (there just isnt a non-offending side in that problem). But perhaps it is too simple a solution. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 05:57:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 05:57:15 +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 FAA14617 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 05:57:07 +1000 Received: from modem72.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.200] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zPuKO-0005ya-00; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:00:25 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:49:47 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the most fatal error is to think," ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: clear rules > Date: 03 October 1998 00:39 > > Originally I was going to write this little essay in response to David > Stevenson's article on why we don't need a definition of convention. > Some time (!) has passed since his article appeared, and I see the main > point is even more generally applicable. \X/ \X/ > OK, enough ranting. And in case it's not clear, I have the utmost > respect and appreciation for Grattan and Ton and the work they do, and > I hope no one will take any of the above comments as indicating > otherwise. Disagreement is to be expected, but if the above is > disagreeable, that wasn't intentional. ++++ Not a problem. It is helpful to see all sides. Somewhere along the way I begin to see too great an ambition in seeking to control a mind game as though it were simply a mechanical or dexterity game. But simplicity is desirable, only second to clarity. My personal opinion is that in the current decade we should start looking at a revised format earlier rather than later. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 06:21:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:21:12 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA14673 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:21:06 +1000 Received: from modem118.daffy.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.246] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zPuhg-0006tQ-00; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:24:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:23:19 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the most fatal error is to think," ---------- > From: Anton Witzen > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? > Date: 04 October 1998 10:26 > > At 01:19 04-10-98 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan > >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > > > >This week-end I am chairing appeals at an EBU event > >here in Liverpool. The Director in Charge is DWS. > > >back home tonight I am re-reading > >16C2 with some interest - it does not seem to say > >anything about cases where both sides have committed > >irregularities. ~~ Grattan ~~ > > Anton:- > Hi, > IMHO 4th player didnt commit an irregularity. > Perhaps if you interpret in 16c2 any offending side separately, then your > problem is solved (there just isnt a non-offending side in that problem). > But perhaps it is too simple a solution. > ++++ If you do as you say, does not each player find that his own side's withdrawn calls are UI but opponent's withdrawn calls are not cited as UI ? - it only talks about withdrawn actions of a non- offending opponent. Provisionally I incline to the view that the law applies restrictions only when one side has committed an irregularity and the other is innocent. Whatever is the case it is yet one more instance of the need to tighten the screws of clarity. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 08:04:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 08:04:59 +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 IAA14845 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 08:04:55 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 05 Oct 1998 09:09:53 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 09:09:22 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trick won.....but not 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 One person=27s horror movie is another=27s comedy....:) Declarer leads singleton HJ from dummy (first time hearts are led) , intending to ruff a heart loser later, holding Qx in hand. Declarer is somewhat puzzled when the trick holds=21 Declarer crosses to hand and leads HQ, throwing a loser from dummy and this trick also holds=21 I am called about four tricks further on when RHO discovers he has two cards less than dummy. The HAK are found in the board of course=21 Or... being called to a table where one player has 14 cards. It=27s not missing from any other boards at the table, so the card goes in my top pocket. Ten minutes later, I get the call I=27m expecting... =22I=27ve only got 12 cards....=22. A quick check of the hand records, pull the card out of the top pocket and hey presto=21 I wish I had a camera to capture the look on the players=27 faces=21 Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Dany Haimovici 3/10/98 17:52:30 >>> I agree with the very simple ruling decided by most of the=20 contributors.... Only one remark : please check the first trick : if you find=20 an Ace or KingKong which is twice in the same packet..... I don=27t laugh and don=27t dream (maybe nightmare..) -=20 it happened to me at least twice each year , even at=20 national level tournaments... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 17:01:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:01:50 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15655 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:01:39 +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 0zQ4hZ-0006Kc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:05:01 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4DV3TWT5>; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:17:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:17:44 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > >> #####OLD##### BTW. Cross-Imp is always best if at all possible > and > >> Butler cannot be used for single-winner arrow-switched movements > for > >> the same reasons that aggregate scoring cannot be used. > ######OLD##### > > > Mike Amos wrote: > > 'why? > :))' > > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > Please explain this ! (privately if you want) > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > 'A point to remember!' > > # > Mark Abraham wrote: > > 'If you have time, I'd like to know too.' > > > ######### It looks like I therefore have some explaining to do! The > mathematics of duplicate bridge movements has been investigated by > only a few foolhardy souls and the best academic paper 'The > Mathematics of Duplicate Bridge Tournaments' was produced by an > Englishman, Dr John Manning, who sadly died about four weeks ago. I > have also done a fair amount of research in this area, much of which > is based on John's early work, and some of which will eventually be > published. Maddog's comment about my probably having a monograph on > the subject is based on his having had to sit still through one of my > half-day seminars covering this very topic. > > When you play normal matchpointed pairs, you have two sets of > opponents, the direct opponents that you play against at your table > and the indirect opponents who play the boards in the same direction > as you but at other tables. When your opponents do well, this harms > your score. When you do well, the converse is true. You also have a > set of allies who play the boards in the opposite direction to you but > at other tables. When they do well, it helps your score and, when > they do badly, it harms your score. The mathematics of the > competition involved is fairly easy to analyse and I will send a > rigorous proof to anyone who really wants it but it is fairly easy to > show that for a complete movement, ie. one where all of the boards are > played by everybody, you need to arrow-switch slightly more than > one-eigth of the boards to equalise competition fairly between all > players. OK, the hand waving arguement for those that want to know is > that if I switch one-eigth of the boards that I play and another > north/south pair the other side of the room do the same then we have > played three-quarters of the boards in the same direction as indirect > opponents and one-quater in the opposite directions as allies, leaving > a net balance of half the boards played in competition. John Probst > has elaborated on my hand waving proof in his recent posting which > incidently was wrong when John said that a non-switched Mitchell has > zero competition between the two lines. All skip and > incomplete/truncated Mitchells have a net competition between the > lines. In a skip Mitchell, would you want to start against the best > pair in the room and have play a revenge round against them as well? > > Now, the above work can extended to arrow-switching a wide range of > different movements for MATCHPOINTED PAIRS because the marhematical > model and the competition equation are well understood and, barring > non-balancing artificial scores and fines, the matchpoints are > conserved within the lines, ie. we are all fighting over the same pot. > ########## > > > Irv Kostal wrote: > > 'This Summer I had occasion to play in the UK twice, once in Bristol > (in > a Polish Church, as I recall) and at the Young Chelsea Club in London. > > In Bristol, we were N/S, but on the first round (and maybe the 2nd > too), > we played E/W. At the Young Chelsea, we were E/W, but played a round > or > two in the N/S seat. When I inquired about this movement, which I > have > never experienced in the US, I was told it was so that they could > compute an overall winner. This did not really make any sense to me, > and I never did find out the rationale. I wonder if someone (John > Probst?) could give me some info. At both games, the scoring was some > form of IMP pairs.' > > > ########## Irv is quite right that the Young Chelsea has run a > single-winner arrow-switched IMP game on Friday evenings since the > year dot and IMO John Probst is quite wrong when he says that 'In > Butler imps the math is not clear and the Jury is still out.' The > idea of switching one-eigth of the boards is valid only for > match-pointed pairs scoring because of its mathematical properties, > ie. the total number of matchpoints available is fixed and conserved > between the lines and all boards are equal, that is, a top on one > board is exactly the same as a top on any other. Butler does NOT have > these properties and therefore the YC Friday game has dubious > validity. What is really happening there is that a ranked list of > players who have played mostly NS is being interweaved with a ranked > list of players who have played mostly EW. Butler scoring (unlike > cross-IMP) is not conservative between the lines, ie a board can > result in a net gain to the NS or EW lines, eg. to give an extreme > example, scoring +100, +100, +100 & +500 all to NS and excluding the > highest and the lowest score will generate a net IMP swing to the NS > line of +9 IMPs based on a datum of +100. Even including all results > and not excluding the extreme scores won't work because of the > inconsistencies in the IMP scales, and rescoring the above example > with all results gives a datum of +200 and a net gain now to EW of +2 > IMPs! A further problem with Butler scoring is that not all boards > are equal due to vulnerability. Aggregate scoring has exactly the > same mathematical properties as Butler, ie. it is not conserved within > the lines and is affected by the vulnerability of each board. Thus, > there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that a movement > based on a mathematical model for match-pointed pairs scoring would > have any validity at all when used for aggregate or Butler events. > Cross-IMP scoring on the other hand is conservative (try the above > example with cross-imps!) and could, at least in theory, be validly > used for single-winner events but the competition coefficients in the > relevant equations would need to be recalculated and you might find > that a different amount of arrow-switching is required when compared > to match-pointed pairs. ########## > > > Finally, David Burn wrote: > > 'As a result of an equally ludicrous debate at our local bridge club, > the odd-numbered tables now arrow-switch boards on the penultimate > round. The mathematical reason for this is unassailable. The fact that > anyone should care about it is...well, those who care about that sort > of thing will find this the sort of thing they care about. > > Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for Economics when he proved that > (over-simplification coming up) it was impossible to devise a voting > system that would meet every criterion (or, indeed, very many > criteria) of "fairness" that reasonable people could reasonably > impose. The same is true of scoring systems at bridge; whatever model > you propose, it will be trivial to construct a counter-example under > which that model does not work. But that does not matter, for all > models have this in common when applied to a sufficiently large number > of boards: If you play well enough, you win. If you don't, you don't. > > Should this debate continue, please could it do so somewhere else?' > > > ########### A pity that DALB won't be reading this but if I offered > to increase a player's score by between 1% and 2% per session by > entirely legal means then I bet that an awful lot of players would be > interested. Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that > randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that > avoid the problem? ########### > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 18:12:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:12:47 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA15814 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:12:38 +1000 Received: from christian (c030.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.30]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA28356 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:15:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:12:40 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDF048.AEF9F410.bernscherer@parsec.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:12:38 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan [SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] wrote: > [...] > Anton:- > > Hi, > > IMHO 4th player didnt commit an irregularity. > > Perhaps if you interpret in 16c2 any offending side separately, > > then your > > problem is solved (there just isnt a non-offending side in that > > problem). > > But perhaps it is too simple a solution. > > > ++++ If you do as you say, does not each player find that his own > side's withdrawn calls are UI but opponent's withdrawn calls are not > > cited as UI ? - it only talks about withdrawn actions of a non- > offending opponent. > Provisionally I incline to the view that the law applies > restrictions > only when one side has committed an irregularity and the other is > innocent. Whatever is the case it is yet one more instance of the > need to tighten the screws of clarity. ~~ > Grattan ~~ ++++ Hi I think all withdrawn actions should be considered UI for both sides in that case because the information made available can be of very different importance for the hand. As both sides are at fault I think that restores the fairest conditions for continueing play. Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 21:54:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:54:34 +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 VAA16157 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:54:25 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-91.uunet.be [194.7.9.91]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29325; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3618BBE5.F3D59542@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:30:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Martin , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > ######### It looks like I therefore have some explaining to do! The > > mathematics of duplicate bridge movements has been investigated by > > only a few foolhardy souls and the best academic paper 'The > > Mathematics of Duplicate Bridge Tournaments' was produced by an > > Englishman, Dr John Manning, who sadly died about four weeks ago. I > > have also done a fair amount of research in this area, much of which > > is based on John's early work, and some of which will eventually be > > published. Maddog's comment about my probably having a monograph on > > the subject is based on his having had to sit still through one of my > > half-day seminars covering this very topic. > > It looks as if I am not the only calculation-mad person on this list. I therefor post this one to the list, but I invite David to reply off-list. As DB has stated, perhaps this is not of general interest. Will those that ARE interested contact David or myself and we can form a subgroup. (dissertation on arrow-switching snipped) > > > > Now, the above work can extended to arrow-switching a wide range of > > different movements for MATCHPOINTED PAIRS because the marhematical > > model and the competition equation are well understood and, barring > > non-balancing artificial scores and fines, the matchpoints are > > conserved within the lines, ie. we are all fighting over the same pot. > > ########## > > I am not certain what David is starting to say here. Do you advocate a DIFFERENT set of arrow-switches in IMP pairs ? Or are you simply stating that in your belief the arrow-switching will NOT solve some perceived problem with IMP pairs ? Lets read on : > > > > > > ########## Irv is quite right that the Young Chelsea has run a > > single-winner arrow-switched IMP game on Friday evenings since the > > year dot and IMO John Probst is quite wrong when he says that 'In > > Butler imps the math is not clear and the Jury is still out.' The > > idea of switching one-eigth of the boards is valid only for > > match-pointed pairs scoring because of its mathematical properties, > > ie. the total number of matchpoints available is fixed and conserved > > between the lines and all boards are equal, that is, a top on one > > board is exactly the same as a top on any other. Butler does NOT have > > these properties and therefore the YC Friday game has dubious > > validity. Same question as above. > >What is really happening there is that a ranked list of > > players who have played mostly NS is being interweaved with a ranked > > list of players who have played mostly EW. Butler scoring (unlike > > cross-IMP) is not conservative between the lines, ie a board can > > result in a net gain to the NS or EW lines, eg. to give an extreme > > example, scoring +100, +100, +100 & +500 all to NS and excluding the > > highest and the lowest score will generate a net IMP swing to the NS > > line of +9 IMPs based on a datum of +100. Even including all results > > and not excluding the extreme scores won't work because of the > > inconsistencies in the IMP scales, and rescoring the above example > > with all results gives a datum of +200 and a net gain now to EW of +2 > > IMPs! A further problem with Butler scoring is that not all boards > > are equal due to vulnerability. Aggregate scoring has exactly the > > same mathematical properties as Butler, ie. it is not conserved within > > the lines and is affected by the vulnerability of each board. Although the arguments stated are certainly true, they have IMHO no bearing on the problem being discussed. IMPS games place more importance on some boards and less on others. So does team play. What's the problem ? The calculation method can be as good as we can make it, the relative importance of boards will never become equal. That's just bridge. Rather it makes the matchpoint game a different one, in that it FORCES all deals to become equally important and therefor IMO a more difficult competetion ! > > Thus, > > there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that a movement > > based on a mathematical model for match-pointed pairs scoring would > > have any validity at all when used for aggregate or Butler events. If the reason for arrow-switching were only a mathematical one, then your statement is true, but there is no way to fix it, as I explained above. But the arguments in favor of arrow-switching are more diverse. One other (IMO the best) argument for arrow-switching is thatwithout it, your opponents in the current round are your friends for each and every single other board. Thus it becomes interesting to tell them all your previous results. Now if they will be yur enemies on some other boards (because they will play them in the same direction as you) it is not profitable to tell them anything. > > Cross-IMP scoring on the other hand is conservative (try the above > > example with cross-imps!) and could, at least in theory, be validly > > used for single-winner events but the competition coefficients in the > > relevant equations would need to be recalculated and you might find > > that a different amount of arrow-switching is required when compared > > to match-pointed pairs. ########## > > I have already written privately to Steve about this. IMO there is no reason why boards should be "conservative", or why there should be "recentring". The effects of the "non-balancing-bits" are unbiased, centred around zero, and as a whole rather small. There are so many other effects that influence a final result (such as the selection of the pairs that you meet) that are impossible to counter, that I fear the present discussion is not needed. I agree that the choice between two methods may be influenced by this discussion, but its importance is not to be overestimated. FI, Bastille does better than Butler on "centering", and "Cross-IMPs" does best, but there are other differences between Butler and Cross-IMPs that are more important than this. IMHO. > > > > Finally, David Burn wrote: > > > > The same is true of scoring systems at bridge; whatever model > > you propose, it will be trivial to construct a counter-example under > > which that model does not work. But that does not matter, for all > > models have this in common when applied to a sufficiently large number > > of boards: If you play well enough, you win. If you don't, you don't. > > > > Should this debate continue, please could it do so somewhere else?' > > > > > > ########### A pity that DALB won't be reading this but if I offered > > to increase a player's score by between 1% and 2% per session by > > entirely legal means then I bet that an awful lot of players would be > > interested. Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that > > randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that > > avoid the problem? ########### > > I agree that even if only mathematicians understand why, an improvement to an existing method should be adopted if it does not overly interfere with the play. I have made for my club movements over 30 boards for all numbers of pairs from 6 to 40. The movements are as balanced as they can be. People have to arrow-switch, and they sometimes do it wrong. But the main reason for the implementation was the standard of 30 boards, and the single result. I didn't think it interfered more than normal;, so I implemented it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 21:54:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:54:24 +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 VAA16150 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:54:16 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-91.uunet.be [194.7.9.91]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29338 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3618BEC7.F33A8C94@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:42:47 +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: Re: clear rules References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > ++++ Not a problem. It is helpful to see all sides. Somewhere along > the way I begin to see too great an ambition in seeking to control > a mind game as though it were simply a mechanical or dexterity > game. But simplicity is desirable, only second to clarity. My personal > opinion is that in the current decade we should start looking at > a revised format earlier rather than later. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ There are two points to make about "clear rules". The revoke law is a "clear rule". It is not simple, but it is "clear". The revoke penalty is such that it seems rather fair to me. A more simple rule would be less fair ("shoot them" is very simple, but not very fair). If it is the opinion of posters that the rules should be simpler if less fair, then that is a opinion I don't share. The other point is that some rules are, as it was put, of type "2", and that these should be changed to more clear type 1 rules. That is the style of the penalties : "misinformation : -1VP". Even if we want to make bridge more attractive as a sport, we will never succeed in doing so by the simple elimination type-2 rules. A match of Rugby is quite enjoyable, even if one does not know why the referee ruled a scrum, a penalty or whatever. I don't find anything wrong with the rules in general. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 22:22:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:22:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA16317 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:22:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQ9hw-0005Rw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:25:45 +0000 Message-ID: <7ks$4AA1EKG2Ew0G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 11:36:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >> Finally, David Burn wrote: >> >> 'As a result of an equally ludicrous debate at our local bridge club, >> the odd-numbered tables now arrow-switch boards on the penultimate >> round. The mathematical reason for this is unassailable. The fact that >> anyone should care about it is...well, those who care about that sort >> of thing will find this the sort of thing they care about. >> >> Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for Economics when he proved that >> (over-simplification coming up) it was impossible to devise a voting >> system that would meet every criterion (or, indeed, very many >> criteria) of "fairness" that reasonable people could reasonably >> impose. The same is true of scoring systems at bridge; whatever model >> you propose, it will be trivial to construct a counter-example under >> which that model does not work. But that does not matter, for all >> models have this in common when applied to a sufficiently large number >> of boards: If you play well enough, you win. If you don't, you don't. >> >> Should this debate continue, please could it do so somewhere else?' I must say I do not see why we should do it somewhere else if David does not like it! No doubt he will avoid reading posts headed Butler scoring! >> ########### A pity that DALB won't be reading this but if I offered >> to increase a player's score by between 1% and 2% per session by >> entirely legal means then I bet that an awful lot of players would be >> interested. Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that >> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that >> avoid the problem? ########### This *is* interesting because many people instinctively believe David's last question to have no sensible positive answer - and the same logic is being misapplied throughout life generally! The answer is that decisions over movements and many other things depend on a number of factors of which fairness is only one. To see this, let us take a ridiculous example: Which would you prefer, a movement that is slightly unfair by randomising your score by about 2%, or a movement that is totally fair? Before you answer, let me point out that the event is played on two floors. If you go for the slightly unfair movement, E/W pairs will move between floors twice during the movement, and N/S pairs not at all. If you go for the totally fair movement then *every* pair will change floors between *every* board. You go for the slightly unfair movement. In the same way there are a lot of factors apart from pure fairness that decide what you should do. When I used to play at Liverpool BC the stationary seats were grabbed by whoever came through the door first. Once a month was a more important competition and people were always trying to get a "fairer" arrangement, ie forcing a cut or something. It did not work because the majority of players did not want it: fairness was not the only consideration. [Apropos of that, I remember one week when it was *forced* on the players: they did this by the Chairman, Ralph Churney, making a single public cut of the cards and applying it to every table. E/W won the cut, so every table switched direction. All night poor old Ralph was being asked why it was a fairer method since everyone was playing against the same people as if there had been no cut!] When I asked the original question I said that I was asking between median and mode Butler *because* I could say why Cross-imps is better. It is perceived as fairer so should be used IMO in top level games - *but* that does not mean it should be used in all games. If your local club wants an evening of imp-scored pairs just to see what it is like then Butler is preferable to Cross-imps because ordinary players find it much easier to understand and check when the scoring is done via a datum score: in fact people quite like doing the scoring themselves when datums have been worked out and published. Again, being the fairest method is not the main consideration. So, David, the answer to your specific question... >Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that >> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that >> avoid the problem? ...is that there are other considerations as well, and it is bonkers to use a movement where even tables and odd arrow-switch at different times, or where you arrow-switch odd boards throughout the evening, or similar, because the increase in fairness does not outweigh the effects of the dislocation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 5 22:22:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:22:40 +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 WAA16318 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:22:30 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQ9hx-0005Ry-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:25:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: LOOT? revoke? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one seems obvious to me, but ... Have we discussed it? Or something like it? Is it easy [as I believe]? A correspondent has asked me: Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E did not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 and 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and so Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called the director. How would you rule? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 00:21:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:21:46 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18993 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:21:38 +1000 Received: from christian (c002.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.2]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA06175 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:25:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:21:44 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDF07C.3DF26A70.bernscherer@parsec.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:21:43 +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:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] wrote: > This one seems obvious to me, but ... > > Have we discussed it? Or something like it? Is it easy [as I > believe]? > > A correspondent has asked me: > > Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E > did > not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in > confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 > and > 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and > so > Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called > the > director. How would you rule? > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic / > \ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ > @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ South led out of turn, West accepted it by following to the trick. If West has a spade, he has to remove his card (the club becomes a penalty card), and after West's turn declarer has to play a spade from dummy. Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 02:35:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 02:35:00 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19497 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 02:34:55 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQDeF-0004r6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 14:20:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: <3618BBE5.F3D59542@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >It looks as if I am not the only calculation-mad person on this list. >I therefor post this one to the list, but I invite David to reply off-list. As >DB has stated, >perhaps this is not of general interest. >Will those that ARE interested contact David or myself and we can form a >subgroup. In my view subgroups are counter-productive because we have lurkers who never post [nor wish to] but read a fair amount: similarly some who are near-lurkers and post very rarely. Furthermore there are people like myself who skim quickly over this type of article to see whether there might be any interest in it for me. So long as people are always careful to keep Subjects unchanged those who are not interested can delete these posts unread [or kill the thread with good software]. I would not want long and involved discussions on subjects not related to the technical organisation of the game of bridge but subjects such as this one which are marginal as to whether they are covered by our normal range of discussion seem very suitable because of the type of people reading this list. May I suggest you start a thread called Arrow-switching at Butler or some such and post to it all you please? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 03:54:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 03:54:13 +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 DAA19643 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 03:54:00 +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 0zQEst-000393-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:57:24 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4JPMFGLP>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:47:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:47:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > So, David, the answer to your specific question... > >Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that > >> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that > >> avoid the problem? > ...is that there are other considerations as well, and it is bonkers > to > use a movement where even tables and odd arrow-switch at different > times, or where you arrow-switch odd boards throughout the evening, or > similar, because the increase in fairness does not outweigh the > effects > of the dislocation. > > ######### David. I fully agree with everything that you say but IMO > DALB was grossly exagerating the issues with what we do at the YC. > When we have two board rounds and the correct arrow-switching would > require three boards to be switched then, rather than switch one board > in the penultimate round, all we do instead is to switch all odd > numbered tables in the penultimate round and all tables in the final > round. So far it has worked very well with very few errors and there > have very few complaints in nearly a year of doing this. > > Just to show you that had already considered the sort of points that > you mention, I have pasted in below a section of notes from one of my > half-day movement seminars. Enjoy! > > > Selecting the Best Movement > > To select the technically best movement from the large number > available, the following rules apply in order of priority: > > 1 choose the most complete movement possible, ie. you can only > compete on the boards that you actually play, hence, playing 24 out of > 48 boards in a Mitchell is to effectively have two separate > competitions running with players playing to varying degrees in each - > For single winner arrow-switched movements, also bear in mind the 80% > rule referred to earlier, ie. that the number of rounds should be > >0.8T > 2 choose the most super-complete movement possible, ie. the > largest single interaction between any two pairs is when they meet > each other at the table > 3 choose the most balanced movement available as this minimises > the influence of each pairs' starting position > > For a single session, two winner event, the complete Odd Table & Relay > and Share Mitchells are ideal as they are both perfect. The two > winner Bowman movements are not well balanced. > > For a single session, single winner event, the Full Howell or complete > switched Mitchells are best. There are perfect Full Howell movements > available for all even numbers of tables and well balanced Howells for > odd numbers of tables. Complete switched Mitchells are also well > balanced but not perfect. The switched Bowman movements are not well > balanced. > > For two session, single winner championship pairs events, there are > perfect Worger-Hanner Interwoven Howells available for even numbers of > tables. There is no perfect movement for odd numbers of tables > > *******Other factors influencing the choice of movement: > > the need for a specific number of boards to be played, eg. for > regulatory or master point purposes > the availability of the appropriate movement cards > the ability of the computer scoring program to produce movement > cards and/or cope with scoring the movement > the number of moving players if space is cramped > the number of stationary seats if there are invalids or disabled > players > board sets >2 if there are sharing tables > smallest board set size possible if there is a sit out > avoiding shares and/or relays if the movement is to be truncated > and incomplete******* > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 04:24:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:24:29 +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 EAA19756 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:24:22 +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 0zQFMH-0006Aq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:27:45 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4JPMFGLR>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:04:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: David Martin > Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 7:02 PM > To: 'David Stevenson' > Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David > Burn) > > DWS wrote: > > > Which would you prefer, a movement that is slightly unfair by > randomising your score by about 2%, or a movement that is > totally fair? > Before you answer, let me point out that the event is played on > two > floors. If you go for the slightly unfair movement, E/W pairs > will move > between floors twice during the movement, and N/S pairs not at > all. If > you go for the totally fair movement then *every* pair will > change > floors between *every* board. > > You go for the slightly unfair movement. > > ########## A good example of this is the YC 24 hour marathon > (first prize ?3,000) where 56 pairs compete in an all-play-all event > held in three rooms, the basement, ground floor and first floor. For > the very reason that you have described, we do not use the very best > movement which is a five session stanza Howell but instead make do > with two eleven-table Mitchells that have special arrow-switches > (first or last four rounds) and special board layouts (one room's > board sets are always displaced from the other room's by three tables) > and a very special Howell takes care of the remaining twelve pairs. > The lines of eleven cycle around a stationary pair in the Howell and, > although the balance this year will not be perfect, it is a hell of a > lot better than the previous movements that have been used. With > several thousand pounds worth of prizes at stake, the YC Committee > felt that such improvements were justified and I had the joyous task > yesterday of deriving the correct Howell movements! ########### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 04:24:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:24:30 +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 EAA19757 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:24:22 +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 0zQFMI-0006Aq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:27:46 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4JPMFGLS>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:12:19 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > So, David, the answer to your specific question... > >Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that > >> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that > >> avoid the problem? > ...is that there are other considerations as well, and it is bonkers > to > use a movement where even tables and odd arrow-switch at different > times, or where you arrow-switch odd boards throughout the evening, or > similar, because the increase in fairness does not outweigh the > effects > of the dislocation. > > ######## One final point because I have already sent two replies to > this posting. Whilst I fully accept your points about being pragmatic > and chosing practical movements, excuses for not changing seriously > flawed movements that go along the lines of "we've always done it that > way before and can't change it now" shouldn't and, indeed, didn't cut > much ice! In some of the debates about YC movements that were > referred to by DALB, this was often the only objection. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 04:44:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:44:29 +1000 Received: from agomboc (agomboc.drotposta.hu [193.68.40.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19829 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:44:21 +1000 From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 0zQFbb-0006oT-00; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:43:36 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:23:14 +0100 (MET DST) To: Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Bernscherer 1998.10.05. 16:21:43 +2h-kor irta: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] wrote: > This one seems obvious to me, but ... > > Have we discussed it? Or something like it? Is it easy [as I > believe]? > > A correspondent has asked me: > > Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E > did > not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in > confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 > and > 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and > so > Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called > the > director. How would you rule? > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic / > \ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ > @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ South led out of turn, West accepted it by following to the trick. If West has a spade, he has to remove his card (the club becomes a penalty card), and after West's turn declarer has to play a spade from dummy. Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at Excellent and I believe East can turn the CK face down at last. Andras Andras Booc Budapest, Hungary Mail: Martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 04:55:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:55:24 +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 EAA19860 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:55:06 +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 0zQFpr-00015h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:58:19 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4JPMFGLW>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:48:20 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:48:19 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > It looks as if I am not the only calculation-mad person on this list. > I therefor post this one to the list, but I invite David to reply > off-list. As DB has stated, > perhaps this is not of general interest. > Will those that ARE interested contact David or myself and we can form > a subgroup. > > (dissertation on arrow-switching snipped) > > ######## Following DWS's posting on the subject of subgroups, I am > replying to the whole list but I am also willing to send out > individual replies in future if the general view is that BLML should > not be clogged up with this sort material. ######## > > > > >######OLD#### > > > Now, the above work can extended to arrow-switching a wide range > of > > > different movements for MATCHPOINTED PAIRS because the > marhematical > > > model and the competition equation are well understood and, > barring > > > non-balancing artificial scores and fines, the matchpoints are > > > conserved within the lines, ie. we are all fighting over the same > pot. > > > #######OLD### > > > > > I am not certain what David is starting to say here. > Do you advocate a DIFFERENT set of arrow-switches in IMP pairs ? > > ####### Yes, for cross-IMP pairs. ######## > > Or are you simply stating that in your belief the arrow-switching will > NOT solve some perceived > problem with IMP pairs ? ########## Again yes, but now only for > Butler (and also aggregate) scoring. ######## > Lets read on : > > SNIP > > > Although the arguments stated are certainly true, they have IMHO no > bearing on the problem being > discussed. IMPS games place more importance on some boards and less > on others. So does team play. > What's the problem ? > > ######## The problem is that if the movement is incomplete then some > pairs could be very seriously disadvantaged and the fairness of the > game suffers. Even in a complete movement, IMO arrow-switching will > not enable a single winner to be fairly determined and why should > anybody's chances of winning be overly influenced by the accident of > their starting position? ######### > > The calculation method can be as good as we can make it, the relative > importance of boards will > never become equal. That's just bridge. > Rather it makes the matchpoint game a different one, in that it FORCES > all deals to become equally > important and therefor IMO a more difficult competetion ! > > ######### Agreed but this also enables a single winner to be > identified with at least some semblence of fairness. ####### > > > > Thus, > > > there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that a movement > > > based on a mathematical model for match-pointed pairs scoring > would > > > have any validity at all when used for aggregate or Butler events. > > If the reason for arrow-switching were only a mathematical one, then > your statement is true, but > there is no way to fix it, as I explained above. But the arguments in > favor of arrow-switching are > more diverse. > One other (IMO the best) argument for arrow-switching is thatwithout > it, your opponents in the > current round are your friends for each and every single other board. > Thus it becomes interesting > to tell them all your previous results. > > ######### And illegal! ######## > > Now if they will be yur enemies on some other boards > (because they will play them in the same direction as you) it is not > profitable to tell them > anything. > > > > #####OLD##### Cross-IMP scoring on the other hand is conservative > (try the above > > > example with cross-imps!) and could, at least in theory, be > validly > > > used for single-winner events but the competition coefficients in > the > > > relevant equations would need to be recalculated and you might > find > > > that a different amount of arrow-switching is required when > compared > > > to match-pointed pairs. #####OLD##### > > > > > I have already written privately to Steve about this. > > IMO there is no reason why boards should be "conservative", or why > there should be "recentring". > > The effects of the "non-balancing-bits" are unbiased, centred around > zero, and as a whole rather > small. > > ######### Small over hundreds or thousands of boards yes but not > insignificant over the 24 boards or so played in a typical single > session. ########## > > > There are so many other effects that influence a final result (such as > the selection of the pairs > that you meet) that are impossible to counter, that I fear the present > discussion is not needed. > > > ######## For match-pointed pairs and probably also for cross-IMP, > correct arrow-switching and the application of the 80% rule will > largely remove the effect of which specific pairs are encountered > directly. ####### > > > SNIP > > I agree that even if only mathematicians understand why, an > improvement to an existing method should > be adopted if it does not overly interfere with the play. > > ####### I agree with you totally here but especially about not overly > interfering with the play. ####### > > I have made for my club movements over 30 boards for all numbers of > pairs from 6 to 40. > The movements are as balanced as they can be. People have to > arrow-switch, and they sometimes do it > wrong. But the main reason for the implementation was the standard of > 30 boards, and the single > result. I didn't think it interfered more than normal;, so I > implemented it. > > ######### Whenever I wish to run an unusual or non-standard movement > (and I frequently do for serious events where movement quality > matters) then I use a particular scoring program that is capable of > generating movement cards that are very similar to the commercial > Howell cards in use at many clubs. Thus, from the player's > perspective, it is just another of David's Howells but I know that in > reality it is a Triple Expanded Mitchell or a Worger-Hanner Interwoven > Howell or whatever. That is the way it should be,.ie with the players > simply having to follow the normal movement instructions on the > movement cards and not even being aware of what is actually going on > with the movement. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 05:49:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:49:34 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA19969 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:49:22 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA27031 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA02727 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:52:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810051952.PAA02727@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan >There was a case today of a declarer who led a Diamond >from hand; dummy thought she heard declarer say 'play >small' so placed the lowest Diamond from Dummy and >fourth player covered it with a minimum winning card. >Declarer then said "I asked for a small Spade" - an >attempt to revoke. >Our conclusion was that Law 45D applied. However, >David and I were not in accord as to whether fourth >player was or was not an offender (Dummy is an >offender). Interesting question. I would have thought you would answer it by ruling first on a question of fact. Did declarer say a) "small spade," or b) "small (mumble)?" If the former, then RHO seems to have violated the recommended procedure of calling the TD when there has been an irregularity. If the latter, then I don't see how RHO can be considered an offender. What did he do wrong? Based on dummy's play, I'd rule b) unless there were strong evidence to the contrary. In fact, based on that evidence, I'm not quite sure how you get to 45D. L46B might be worth considering. (Of course I wasn't there, and maybe there are other facts not reported.) Another one worth considering is L47E2a. If declarer contributed in any way to the misunderstanding, I don't think you can prevent the defender from changing his play. You might be able to consider the withdrawn card to be UI if the defender was also partially at fault. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 07:37:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:37:39 +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 HAA20296 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:37:28 +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 RAA26253 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA01487 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:40:50 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810052140.RAA01487@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:40:49 -0400 (EDT) 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 Apologies to David for receiving two copies. I was wondering why I hadn't seen this on the group yet. As you can see from this, I don't agree with the LOOT. > > This one seems obvious to me, but ... > > Have we discussed it? Or something like it? Not recently.... > Is it easy [as I believe]? I think so. > A correspondent has asked me: > > Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E did > not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in > confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 and > 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and so > Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called the > director. How would you rule? Since E has not turned his CK face down, south's small spade is a fifth card played to the trick and is withdrawn (L45E2). I interpret "fifth card" in L45E as "fifth (or higher-order) card" and deem West's small club as a major penalty card (L45E1,L50B) and Dummy's small club withdrawn (L45E2). I would prefer that West not be penalized since his/her action was brought on by South's fifth card, but OTOH West is as responsible as South is when it comes to keeping track of the cards played. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 07:59:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:59:53 +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 HAA20336 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:59:45 +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 SAA02223 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA02883 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:03:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810052203.SAA02883@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: WBFLC minutes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. (Probably best just to email to me so as not to flood the list. I'll post a copy if I get at least one. Thanks.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 09:00:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:00:13 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20449 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:00:07 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client25ab.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.171]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA12684 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:03:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:08:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf0b5$17d31c20$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 No, I do not think this is a LOOT. No, I do not think there has been a Revoke. I agree with John that this small trump is a fifth card played to trick 2. The card which won trick 2 is not yet quit so the small trump cannot be a lead.Law 45E2 applies and this card is picked up without penalty.Law 65A defines a completed trick as one where four cards have been played and " each player turns his own card face down near him on the table" I disagree with John that Wests' small club is a penalty card. I interpret Law 16C1 to mean that this card can be picked up without penalty, as can Dummys' card. The play reverts to East who may now quit his card played to trick 2, and properly lead to trick 3. Any information from his partners' withdrawn action subsequent to Declares(Offenders) withdrawn action is authorised. Anne -----Original Message----- From: John A Kuchenbrod To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 11:17 PM Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? >Apologies to David for receiving two copies. I was wondering why I hadn't >seen this on the group yet. As you can see from this, I don't agree with >the LOOT. > >> >> This one seems obvious to me, but ... >> >> Have we discussed it? Or something like it? > >Not recently.... > >> Is it easy [as I believe]? > >I think so. > >> A correspondent has asked me: >> >> Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E did >> not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in >> confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 and >> 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and so >> Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called the >> director. How would you rule? > >Since E has not turned his CK face down, south's small spade is a fifth >card played to the trick and is withdrawn (L45E2). I interpret "fifth card" >in L45E as "fifth (or higher-order) card" and deem West's small club >as a major penalty card (L45E1,L50B) and Dummy's small club withdrawn >(L45E2). I would prefer that West not be penalized since his/her action >was brought on by South's fifth card, but OTOH West is as responsible as >South is when it comes to keeping track of the cards played. > >John > >-- >| John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 09:02:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:02:20 +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 JAA20469 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:02:16 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:07:15 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:07:05 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe John is off to a good start - South has NOT led out of turn. Therefore 45E2 applies to South (no penalty). Now, as for West...well I don=27t read law 45E the same as John. A fifth card to me is not =22fifth or higher order=22, so West has played prematurely (but not led)...law 57A. No, David S., I don=27t think this is easy. It took me a while to work this out, and I=27m still not sure I=27m not totally up the wrong tree=21 Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> John A Kuchenbrod 6/10/98 8:40:49 >>> Apologies to David for receiving two copies. I was wondering why I = hadn=27t seen this on the group yet. As you can see from this, I don=27t agree = with the LOOT. >=20 > This one seems obvious to me, but ... >=20 > Have we discussed it? Or something like it?=20 Not recently.... > Is it easy =5Bas I believe=5D? I think so. > A correspondent has asked me: >=20 > Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E did > not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in > confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 and > =27ruffed=27 with a small spade. West =27followed=27 with a small Club = and so > Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called the > director. How would you rule? Since E has not turned his CK face down, south=27s small spade is a fifth card played to the trick and is withdrawn (L45E2). I interpret =22fifth = card=22=20 in L45E as =22fifth (or higher-order) card=22 and deem West=27s small = club=20 as a major penalty card (L45E1,L50B) and Dummy=27s small club withdrawn (L45E2). I would prefer that West not be penalized since his/her = action=20 was brought on by South=27s fifth card, but OTOH West is as responsible = as=20 South is when it comes to keeping track of the cards played. John --=20 =7C John A. Kuchenbrod =7C kuch=40ms.uky.edu =7C http://www.ms.uky.edu/=7Ek= uch =7C From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 10:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:15:34 +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 KAA20626 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:15:27 +1000 Received: from client26ac.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.172] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zQKq2-00080B-00; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:18:51 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:23:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf0bf$9bbfcce0$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 Simon! No.. I do not think that West has lead to the next trick before his partner so I do not think it is Law 57A. I think West has been duped into following declarers card. He sees two cards on the table, it is declarers' infraction which has caused his error. I am sticking with Law 16C until someone convinces me otherwise. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Simon Edler To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 12:29 AM Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? I believe John is off to a good start - South has NOT led out of turn. Therefore 45E2 applies to South (no penalty). Now, as for West...well I don't read law 45E the same as John. A fifth card to me is not "fifth or higher order", so West has played prematurely (but not led)...law 57A. No, David S., I don't think this is easy. It took me a while to work this out, and I'm still not sure I'm not totally up the wrong tree! Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au >>> John A Kuchenbrod 6/10/98 8:40:49 >>> Apologies to David for receiving two copies. I was wondering why I hadn't seen this on the group yet. As you can see from this, I don't agree with the LOOT. > > This one seems obvious to me, but ... > > Have we discussed it? Or something like it? Not recently.... > Is it easy [as I believe]? I think so. > A correspondent has asked me: > > Trick2 was won by East(defender) and for some unknown reason, E did > not turn his CK face down for a long time. South(declarer), in > confusion or whatever it was, thought CK to be a card led to trick3 and > 'ruffed' with a small spade. West 'followed' with a small Club and so > Dummy. At this point, they came to realize the mistake and called the > director. How would you rule? Since E has not turned his CK face down, south's small spade is a fifth card played to the trick and is withdrawn (L45E2). I interpret "fifth card" in L45E as "fifth (or higher-order) card" and deem West's small club as a major penalty card (L45E1,L50B) and Dummy's small club withdrawn (L45E2). I would prefer that West not be penalized since his/her action was brought on by South's fifth card, but OTOH West is as responsible as South is when it comes to keeping track of the cards played. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 10:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:40:05 +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 KAA20750 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:39:58 +1000 Received: from modem39.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.167] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zQLDg-00048z-00; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:43:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:42:04 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the most fatal error is to think." ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: clear rules > Date: 05 October 1998 13:42 > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > ++++ Not a problem. It is helpful to see all sides. Somewhere along > > the way I begin to see too great an ambition in seeking to control > > a mind game as though it were simply a mechanical or dexterity > > game. But simplicity is desirable, only second to clarity. My personal > > opinion is that in the current decade we should start looking at > > a revised format earlier rather than later. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > Herman:- > > If it is the opinion of posters that the rules should be simpler if less fair, >then that is a > opinion I don't share. ++++ Nor do I share it. For me simplicity should be the aim in the style of the rules but should not mean use of the surgeon's knife when remedying the malaise caused by a player's inadvertent irregularity ++++ > Herman:- > Even if we want to make bridge more attractive as a sport, we will >never succeed in doing so by the > simple elimination type-2 rules. ++++ I believe type-2 rules are essential and inevitable in Bridge, and that it is a delusion to suggest the game would be fairer without them. Type-1 rules applied in situations of problematic issue increase the inequities and militate against balance in the treatment of contestants. They substitute uniformity for judiciality.++++ > > I don't find anything wrong with the rules in general. > ++++ Ah! I do not stay with you to the end. In places the rules are infelicitously expressed and lack clarity. They should be strengthened too against distortion at the hands of those who are a law unto themselves. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 10:40:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:40:06 +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 KAA20751 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:39:59 +1000 Received: from modem39.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.167] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zQLDf-00048z-00; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:43:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Christian Bernscherer" , "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:30:38 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the most fatal error is to think." ---------- > From: Christian Bernscherer > To: Bridge Laws (E-Mail) > Subject: Re: Offender, Offender? > Date: 05 October 1998 09:12 > \x/ \x/ \x/ > Hi > I think all withdrawn actions should be considered UI for both sides > in that case because the information made available can be of very > different importance for the hand. As both sides are at fault I think > that restores the fairest conditions for continueing play. > ++++ So do I. But my interest at this minute is in what the law actually is, today. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 11:01:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:01:31 +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 LAA20815 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:01:23 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQLYU-0007a4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:04:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:36:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes In-Reply-To: <199810052203.SAA02883@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws >Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. > >(Probably best just to email to me so as not to flood the list. I'll >post a copy if I get at least one. Thanks.) > This is the week I have promised myself to catch up on the Internet. this involves a lot of things, including collating these excerpts for my Bridgepage - and some other BLML business left outstanding. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 11:17:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:17:48 +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 LAA20857 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:17:42 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24e1.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.225]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA18040 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 02:21:06 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 02:26:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf0c8$4cbb2320$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: Simon Edler To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:54 AM Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Hi Anne! I agree that West has not lead to the next trick, but doesn't law 57A cover ANY premature play by defender? No, I don't think so. It starts "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick...." Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 12:20:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:20:56 +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 MAA20956 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:20:49 +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 WAA29103 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA05700 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:24:13 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810060224.WAA05700@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:24:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <01bdf0c8$4cbb2320$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> from "Anne Jones" at Oct 6, 98 02:26:10 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 Anne wrote (I've inserted some >'s to keep authorship straight): >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Simon Edler >> To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk >> Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:54 AM >> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? >> >> >> Hi Anne! >> >> I agree that West has not lead to the next trick, but doesn't law 57A >> cover ANY premature play by defender? > > No, I don't think so. It starts "When a defender leads to the next trick > before his partner has played to the current trick...." I think you snipped the reading of 57A too soon. It continues: "...or plays out of turn before his partner has played..." If it's East's turn to play (or in this case, lead) and West leads, that is a play out of turn. What I would argue is that since East has not turned the card, it isn't East's turn to play yet. Since East hasn't turned the card, West is contributing an extra card to trick two. How can we take care of this card? If we want to be technical about it, consider South's card withdrawn. Now West's card can be considered a "fifth card" and thus become a penalty card. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 12:22:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:22:49 +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 MAA20970 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:22:45 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:27:44 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:27:26 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? 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 Oops, My apologies to all. I responded privately to Anne instead of through the list. Secondly, I haven=27t expressed myself very well. Law 57A does NOT cover ANY premature play by defender. What it does cover, as well as what Anne has quoted below, is this =22..., or plays out of turn before his partner has played=22. What I have been trying to say is that West has not lead out of turn, but he has played out of turn before his partner has played. Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> =22Anne Jones=22 6/10/98 12:26:10 >>> -----Original Message----- From: Simon Edler To: eajewm=40globalnet.co.uk Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:54 AM Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Hi Anne=21 I agree that West has not lead to the next trick, but doesn=27t law 57A cover ANY premature play by defender? ----------------------- No, I don=27t think so. It starts =22When a defender leads to the next = trick before his partner has played to the current trick....=22 Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 12:31:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:31:26 +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 MAA20989 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:31:20 +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 WAA29179; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA05848; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:34:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810060234.WAA05848@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <01bdf0bf$9bbfcce0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> from "Anne Jones" at Oct 6, 98 01:23:57 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 Anne wrote: > > No.. I do not think that West has lead to the next trick before his > partner so I do not think it is Law 57A. I think West has been duped > into following declarers card. He sees two cards on the table, it is > declarers' infraction which has caused his error. I am sticking with Law > 16C until someone convinces me otherwise. > Law 16C speaks of a "play" that is "withdrawn" and how to handle whatever information that may have been presented by the play before it was withdrawn. For the play to be withdrawn, Law 47 must have been applied. The only way I see Law 47 being applied is 47B since West's second contribution to the trick is illegal. Or is it? Ah, there's the rub! There are two ways to view the problem. (1) West is responsible for making sure that a play is not illegal. By contributing a second card after four legal cards have been played to trick two, West has played a card illegally (as a "fifth++ card"), and apply 45E2. (2) West has been duped by South into making the play. Which law would defend this view? I don't think that 16C is sufficient--we need a law to tell us either (a) why West is a non-offender or (b) how West's card can be withdrawn without making it a penalty card. Suggestions? John p.s. to David--I take it back. This one's not easy :) -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 14:16:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:16:27 +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 OAA21099 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:16:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA09343; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810060418.VAA09343@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:15:53 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >So my plea is this: let's enforce the rules as they are written and not >as we might prefer them to be. Let's enforce the rules according to the intent of those who wrote them, even if that intent is not literally conveyed by the words. Was it Grattan who said that the intent of a law resides in the mind of the person who wrote it, not in the words themselves? I buy that concept. On a related subject, perhaps not outside the scope of this thread: Rubens editorial in the current (October 98) issue of *The Bridge World* is entitled "Simpler is Better." He acknowledges the need for simplicity, but holds that the amount of improvement for a law change has to be worth the disruption that it causes. He gives the example of the 50 points for a partscore in duplicate: Changing it to a more logical 100 would have been a good idea 60 years ago, but it's too late now. He includes a suggestion from Ron Klinger, whose opinions are worthy of serious consideration, disruption or not: In rubber bridge, give an immedidate bonus of 300 points for a non-vulnerable game, 500 for a vulnerable game, *period*. Just like duplicate and four-deal (Chicago) bridge. This change would make scoring a lot simpler for beginning rubber bridge players, ease their transition from rubber bridge to either of the other two games, and would further the cause of making all forms of the game as alike as possible in the scoring. Rubens suggests doing away with the honor bonus, an archaic feature that would not be missed. It's one more thing that beginners have to learn, and doing away with it would offset a bit the higher scores resulting from Ron Klinger's suggestion. It would also move rubber and Chicago closer to duplicate, which does not have the honor bonus. Both suggestions would simplify the scoring table, which intimidates beginners as it now stands. Rubens further suggests that there should be "only one set of Laws," which would involve adjusting both legal codes to read the same wherever possible, and "to agree on language and format where there must be bumps." I don't know how he would accomplish this last suggestion. Four-deal bridge is included in the rubber bridge book, as are "Club Laws* for rubber bridge, but squeezing duplicate into the same lawbook looks like a tight fit to me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 15:31:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA21213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:31:58 +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 PAA21208 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:31:50 +1000 Received: from vmv.sandy.ru (vmv.sandy.ru. [195.122.226.66]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id JAA11863; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:31:15 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199810060531.JAA11863@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:31:10 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws > Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. Same about me! :) > (Probably best just to email to me so as not to flood the list. I'll > post a copy if I get at least one. Thanks.) > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 16:01:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:01:13 +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 QAA21276 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:01:06 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-134.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.134]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA5194999 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 02:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3619B3D8.17635CAA@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 01:08:24 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: <199810060234.WAA05848@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I looked all through the laws and what I found is that each player is supposed to turn over their card after all four cards are exposed to a trick. The implication is strong that a player is not to play a subsequent card prior to turning his card to the previous trick. What I also found that the player who won the last trick is the one who leads to the next trick. It does not say that the trick must be quitted before a lead is made is made to the next trick [assuredly it is best, though], merely that the trick must be won. As far as a fifth card to a trick, it seems that it would apply to instances when a card is stuck to another or a player turns their card prematurely and set in a rhythm plays an 'extra card'. That declarer 'fails' to remember the winning card to the preceding trick and plays 'apparently thinking' that RHO has played a new king of clubs is a mental error- a mistake. It is every player's duty to pay attention and declarer did not do so. It is much clearer to me that declarer has played a card out of turn, being a LOOT and LHO has accepted it plus has failed to follow suit in the bargain. It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty card. The current thinking that declarer's play is a fifth card to a trick creates a real mess, creating damage to the defenders. After all, are the defenders the only ones culpable for stopping declarer 's irregularity. Imo, a player is most culpable for his own irregularities. Further, the laws make it a point that the next player in turn is permitted to play after a play out of turn. If there is no double standard, then play proceeds usually without aggravations from L16. I fail to see any posting that satisfactorily resolves this situation after declarer's irregular play and his LHO plays. I see no justice in punishing the other side because declarer committed an irregularity and the NOS did not catch it. Why is it a bigger crime to not catch someone else's crime in time? Just take a look at the punishment of LHO's play after declarer's ruled non-play. John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > Anne wrote: > > > > No.. I do not think that West has lead to the next trick before his > > partner so I do not think it is Law 57A. I think West has been duped > > into following declarers card. He sees two cards on the table, it is > > declarers' infraction which has caused his error. I am sticking with Law > > 16C until someone convinces me otherwise. > > > Law 16C speaks of a "play" that is "withdrawn" and how to handle whatever > information that may have been presented by the play before it was withdrawn. > For the play to be withdrawn, Law 47 must have been applied. The only way > I see Law 47 being applied is 47B since West's second contribution to the > trick is illegal. Or is it? Ah, there's the rub! > > There are two ways to view the problem. > (1) West is responsible for making sure that a play is not illegal. By > contributing a second card after four legal cards have been played to > trick two, West has played a card illegally (as a "fifth++ card"), and > apply 45E2. > > (2) West has been duped by South into making the play. Which law would > defend this view? I don't think that 16C is sufficient--we need a law > to tell us either (a) why West is a non-offender or (b) how West's card > can be withdrawn without making it a penalty card. > > Suggestions? > > John > p.s. to David--I take it back. This one's not easy :) > > -- > | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 18:23:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:23:26 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA21503 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:23:17 +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 KAA14768 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:26:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199810060826.KAA14768@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, 6 Oct 1998 10:27:17 +0000 Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3619B3D8.17635CAA@freewwweb.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Axeman wrote: --------snip-------- > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > card. Yes, you can justify that by "deeming it [South's small trump] as led" (L45c2, and from there to L55) JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 20:43:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:43:21 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21706 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:43:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06932 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:46:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36193A88.59579322@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 22:30:48 +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: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have long since decided not to read David M's posts as they strain my eyes (his replies are completely in italics on my system) but on calculation he does have interesting comments : David Martin wrote: > > > > > ######## Following DWS's posting on the subject of subgroups, I am > > replying to the whole list but I am also willing to send out > > individual replies in future if the general view is that BLML should > > not be clogged up with this sort material. ######## > > So will I. > > > > I am not certain what David is starting to say here. > > Do you advocate a DIFFERENT set of arrow-switches in IMP pairs ? > > > > ####### Yes, for cross-IMP pairs. ######## > > You misunderstood my question. Do you really want other rounds, other tables to arrow-switch depending on whether it is MP or IMP ? > > > > Although the arguments stated are certainly true, they have IMHO no > > bearing on the problem being > > discussed. IMPS games place more importance on some boards and less > > on others. So does team play. > > What's the problem ? > > > > ######## The problem is that if the movement is incomplete then some > > pairs could be very seriously disadvantaged and the fairness of the > > game suffers. Even in a complete movement, IMO arrow-switching will > > not enable a single winner to be fairly determined and why should > > anybody's chances of winning be overly influenced by the accident of > > their starting position? ######### > > But is this really different between MP and IMP ? And if it is different (as it may well turn out to be), are the solutions different ? To put it another way : - for every a problem to be solved (and there are lots of them) - is the problem different between MP and IMP ? - is the solution different ? - would the problem be so much "greater" that other considerations might be overtaken ? > > The calculation method can be as good as we can make it, the relative > > importance of boards will > > never become equal. That's just bridge. > > Rather it makes the matchpoint game a different one, in that it FORCES > > all deals to become equally > > important and therefor IMO a more difficult competetion ! > > > > ######### Agreed but this also enables a single winner to be > > identified with at least some semblence of fairness. ####### > > Again you mix a quantitative and a qualitative problem. You are saying that a MP-event is not fair, but has some semblance of fairness You are saying that an IMP-event is even more unfair, and this makes the fairness "disappear" altogether. While I may agree that the IMP-event is more unfair (I haven't yet decided this - and I doubt if they can be easily compared - it would be like comparing the fairness of Rugby Union and Rugby League), I don't agree that you call the on "fair" and the other "unfair", as you seem to be doing. > > Thus it becomes interesting > > to tell them all your previous results. > > > > ######### And illegal! ######## > > Of course, but if it runs against you, you have even less temptation of telling them something ! (and to be pedantic : it is not illegal to tell something, it is illegal to listen to it !) > > > > I have already written privately to Steve about this. > > > > IMO there is no reason why boards should be "conservative", or why > > there should be "recentring". > > > > The effects of the "non-balancing-bits" are unbiased, centred around > > zero, and as a whole rather > > small. > > > > ######### Small over hundreds or thousands of boards yes but not > > insignificant over the 24 boards or so played in a typical single > > session. ########## > > Again you are attributing a qualitative to a quantitative measure. We all know that 24-board sessions are not particularly "fair". But there are many reasons for this, and in about eighth place I would name uncentred IMP-scores. And all these reasons disappear at the same rate with more boards, simply out of statistical necessity. > > > > There are so many other effects that influence a final result (such as > > the selection of the pairs > > that you meet) that are impossible to counter, that I fear the present > > discussion is not needed. > > > > > > ######## For match-pointed pairs and probably also for cross-IMP, > > correct arrow-switching and the application of the 80% rule will > > largely remove the effect of which specific pairs are encountered > > directly. ####### > > Exactly, but I am stating that meeting a subset of opponents, while statistically averaging 50%, or 0 IMPs, has a distribution characterised by a standard deviation which is, IMO, larger than that of the effect of non-zero IMP-totals on a board. > > > > ######### Whenever I wish to run an unusual or non-standard movement > > (and I frequently do for serious events where movement quality > > matters) then I use a particular scoring program that is capable of > > generating movement cards that are very similar to the commercial > > Howell cards in use at many clubs. Thus, from the player's > > perspective, it is just another of David's Howells but I know that in > > reality it is a Triple Expanded Mitchell or a Worger-Hanner Interwoven > > Howell or whatever. That is the way it should be,.ie with the players > > simply having to follow the normal movement instructions on the > > movement cards and not even being aware of what is actually going on > > with the movement. ######## Of course. I do the same thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 22:21:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:21:23 +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 WAA21948 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:21:17 +1000 Received: from village.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 OAA16196 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361A0F47.DA48B183@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:38:31 +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: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: <199810060234.WAA05848@t5.mscf.uky.edu> <3619B3D8.17635CAA@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not responding to anyone in particular, just a general comment. South did not lead to the next trick, it was his impression that he was following. L45E2 clearly states that the director can determine whether the card is a lead (thus OOT) or a fifth card played West did not play to any trick that has started, so his card is simply a shown card. L45E1 (although talking about a fifth card only - is this a sixth one ?) also gives the TD the power to decide whether this is a lead. L50 gives the power to the TD to NOT make the shown card a penalty card, which is what I would do. Take your cards back and play on, gentlemen ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 22:22:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:22:34 +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 WAA21965 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:22:28 +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 IAA20943 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA01059 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:25:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810061225.IAA01059@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:25:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3619B3D8.17635CAA@freewwweb.com> from "axeman" at Oct 6, 98 01:08:24 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 Axeman wrote: > > I looked all through the laws Then please cite which law applies to each paragraph! > and what I found is that each player is > supposed to turn over their card after all four cards are exposed to a > trick. Agreed--Law 65A. > The implication is strong that a player is not to play a > subsequent card prior to turning his card to the previous trick. Where? Law 65A doesn't use "should" or "must." We've debated these semantics before :) Law 44 doesn't say anything about turning cards, so I don't think that you were referring to that law. > What I also found that the player who won the last trick is the one who > leads to the next trick. It does not say that the trick must be quitted > before a lead is made is made to the next trick [assuredly it is best, > though], merely that the trick must be won. Agreed--Law 44A. > As far as a fifth card to a trick, it seems that it would apply to > instances when a card is stuck to another or a player turns their card > prematurely and set in a rhythm plays an 'extra card'. Not necessarily--in fact, Law 67A2 implies that the "stuck cards" would be simultaneous cards and that any non-simultaneous play of cards would be considered a "fifth card." > That declarer 'fails' to remember the winning card to the preceding > trick and plays 'apparently thinking' that RHO has played a new king of > clubs is a mental error- a mistake. It is every player's duty to pay > attention and declarer did not do so. It is much clearer to me that > declarer has played a card out of turn, being a LOOT and LHO has > accepted it plus has failed to follow suit in the bargain. It's a LOOT only if the trick is over. I'm still not convinced that the trick is over. > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > card. > > The current thinking that declarer's play is a fifth card to a trick > creates a real mess, creating damage to the defenders. After all, are > the defenders the only ones culpable for stopping declarer 's > irregularity. Imo, a player is most culpable for his own > irregularities. Further, the laws make it a point that the next player > in turn is permitted to play after a play out of turn. If there is no > double standard, then play proceeds usually without aggravations from > L16. >From my interpretation of the laws, well, there is a double standard. Look at Law 47. In many instances, declarer may withdraw a card with no penalty, but if defenders try to withdraw a card, it's a penalty card. > I fail to see any posting that satisfactorily resolves this situation > after declarer's irregular play and his LHO plays. I see no justice in > punishing the other side because declarer committed an irregularity and > the NOS did not catch it. Why is it a bigger crime to not catch > someone else's crime in time? Just take a look at the punishment of > LHO's play after declarer's ruled non-play. And look at the punishment that the defenders will receive from a corrected revoke! It's the same (since, depending on the trump LOOT play, East may win the trick). The question remains: when is the trick over? John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 23:03:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:03:48 +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 XAA22041 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:03:41 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQWpT-0007NN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:07:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:10:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: <36193A88.59579322@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have long since decided not to read David M's posts as they strain my >eyes (his replies are completely in italics on my system) but on >calculation he does have interesting comments : He keeps promising to get decent software. Please, David! >(and to be pedantic : it is not illegal to tell something, it is illegal >to listen to it !) Oh? L73B? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 23:17:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:17:13 +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 XAA22059 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:17:07 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.228]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981006132002.DXZA17836@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:02 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:08:21 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdf12a$64a07640$e4c7420c@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: John A Kuchenbrod >The question remains: when is the trick over? Law 65 A From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 23:24:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:24:55 +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 XAA22076 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:23:05 +1000 Received: from vmv.sandy.ru (vmv.sandy.ru. [195.122.226.66]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id RAA09301 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:23:41 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199810061323.RAA09301@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Transfer?! Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:23:34 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This situation occures in regional tournament. EW - expert level pair, NS - novice players. Board 1. N,- N E S W 1NT - 2C - 2D - 2H - 2S ... At this moment E, who has AKxxx in spades asked about the bidding. The explanation: 2C - Stayman, 2D - NO 4-card MAJOR, 2H - transfer to spades!!! 2S - if he(N) thinks!!! that 2H is transfer - this is automathic bid!!! E asks about transfer to hearts and N said that 3D would be transfer to hearts. the bidding continues: - 3H - 4H all pass After opening lead DUMMY lay down with 3 cards in both MAJORs. EW call for TD. What should you do when they call you again after the end (9 tricks for -50)? Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 6 23:51:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:51:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22166 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:51:16 +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 0zQXZP-0004Bz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:54:39 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4LTHQW5Z>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:32:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:32:57 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > I have long since decided not to read David M's posts as they strain > my > eyes (his replies are completely in italics on my system) but on > calculation he does have interesting comments : > > ######## I have tried several times to inprove my e-mail output but > unfortunately, I am limited to use of my company machine with > Microsoft Outlook. ####### > > > > > > > > I am not certain what David is starting to say here. > > > Do you advocate a DIFFERENT set of arrow-switches in IMP pairs ? > > > > > > ###OLD#### Yes, for cross-IMP pairs. ###OLD##### > > > > > You misunderstood my question. Do you really want other rounds, other > tables to arrow-switch depending on whether it is MP or IMP ? > > ######### No. I probably want more than one-eighth of the boards to > be switched. At the end of the movement at all tables will probably > be just fine. ######### > > > > But is this really different between MP and IMP ? > > ########## Definitely different. ########## > > > And if it is different (as it may well turn out to be), are the > solutions different ? > > To put it another way : > > - for every a problem to be solved (and there are lots of them) > - is the problem different between MP and IMP ? > - is the solution different ? > - would the problem be so much "greater" that other considerations > might > be overtaken ? > > ####### IMO it is definitely possible to use arrow-switching to > produce valid single winner events when the scoring is normal > matchpoints, it is probably possible to use arrow-switching to produce > valid single winner events when the scoring is cross-IMP but it is > absolutely impossible to produce valid single winner events by any > means whatsoever when using Butler or Aggreagte scoring. ########### > > > Again you mix a quantitative and a qualitative problem. > > You are saying that a MP-event is not fair, but has some semblance of > fairness > > ######## IMO a single winner MP-event definitely can be fair. > ######### > > > You are saying that an IMP-event is even more unfair, and this makes > the > fairness "disappear" altogether. > > ######## IMO a single winner Butler game can never be fair. ####### > > > > > SNIP > > Exactly, but I am stating that meeting a subset of opponents, while > statistically averaging 50%, or 0 IMPs, has a distribution > characterised > by a standard deviation which is, IMO, larger than that of the effect > of > non-zero IMP-totals on a board. > > > ######### And I am saying that with proper arrow-switching, at > matchpoints the average strength of your direct opponents does not > really matter at all as it's effects are cancelled out by other > competitive forces. (cf. John Manning's paper) ######### > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 00:05:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:05:10 +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 AAA22217 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:05:04 +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 KAA22724; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA03249; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:08:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810061408.KAA03249@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: rbeye@worldnet.att.net (Richard F Beye) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <01bdf12a$64a07640$e4c7420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> from "Richard F Beye" at Oct 6, 98 08:08:21 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 >From Richard: > -----Original Message----- > From: John A Kuchenbrod > > >The question remains: when is the trick over? > > Law 65 A As it appears: A. Completed Trick When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. I would love to claim that L65A is what I need, and that since East had not "turned his own card face down," the trick was not over and the additional cards are played to that second trick. The problem I have with using this law is that it is presented in the context of the arrangment of tricks. I believe that L65A tells the bridge player not to throw all four cards played into a heap to be collected by the winning side. I'm not sure if L65A was intended to say when the trick is over. If it does, and it says that the trick is completed once each player "turns his own card face down," then the debate is over. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 00:33:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:33:00 +1000 Received: from smtp02.wxs.nl (smtp02.wxs.nl [195.121.6.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24654 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:32:54 +1000 Received: from geoff-laptop ([195.121.59.124]) by smtp02.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA53CC for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:35:49 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bdf13f$234fade0$7c3b79c3@geoff-laptop> From: "Geoff Francis" To: Subject: Dummy ask declarer about revoke Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:07:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recently I was asked the following question: "Is a revoke by declarer established if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked? i.e. does law 63B apply (is dummy's action illegal?) and are the penalty tricks described in law 64A applicable?" I decided it was not established since dummy is, according to law 42B1, allowed to ask. My colleague on the other hand thought that although dummy may pose the question (i.e. there is no penalty for the question (42B1)), the revoke is still established in exactly the same was as it is if one defender asks the other (in non-ACBL countries) since dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (43A1b). This means that the actual penalty could be reduced from two tricks (which it is likely to be if dummy does not ask) to one trick by substituting a legal card which does not win the trick. Does anybody know what the actual decision should be? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 01:19:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:19:20 +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 BAA24772 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:19:12 +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 LAA20274 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA00426 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:22:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810061522.LAA00426@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Let's enforce the rules according to the intent of those who wrote > them, even if that intent is not literally conveyed by the words. I hadn't meant to write more on this thread, but it's worth a comment here. If the written laws are unclear or if the literal meaning is in obvious conflict with the spirit of the laws -- and ideally the drafters would avoid either of these situations -- then enforcing the intent is reasonable. But if the written rule is clear and not ridiculous, then I argue for enforcement of the written rule regardless of the intent. That was the point of the hockey example. > Rubens further suggests that there should be "only one set of > Laws," I'd be interested in whether others think this could be accomplished or not. Presumably there would be a section of "rules when there is no TD" and another "rules when there is a TD" or some such arrangement. Come to think of it, one might want to apply at least some of the "no TD" rules when there's a playing director. I'm sure we can all appreciate the advantages of a single set of laws, but is it practical? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 02:04:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:04:34 +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 CAA25012 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:04:28 +1000 Received: from [195.99.45.113] [195.99.45.113] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zQZd9-0001GS-00; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:06:34 +0100 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:08:01 +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 Axeman wrote: --------snip-------- > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > = the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > If = LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > = card. and Jan Peter wrote: Yes, you can justify that by "deeming it [South's small trump] as=20 led" (L45c2, and from there to L55) If a trick ends when and not before all four players have turned their = cards face down, then trick 2 has not ended at the point when South "ruffs" = the CK.(L65A seems to support this interpretation of when a trick is = completed). I would have some difficulty in deeming South's card to be a = "lead" in that case - to deem a card to be a "lead", one needs to be = satisfied that the player intended to lead it (i.e that it should be the = first card played to the trick as per the Definitions). At least, I would = imagine that those who believe intent to be relevant as far as the Laws are = concerned would not consider that a player who clearly intended to ruff an = enemy card could possibly have intended to lead. If one accepts that the current trick is still in progress when South = ruffs, then he has played a fifth card to the trick, and it is subject to = L45E2 (which says that there is no penalty). West has played a sixth card = to the trick, and dummy a seventh, but these are not covered by any Law = other than 48B (those who wanted to treat them as "higher-order fifth = cards" are commended to study the sayings of Abraham Lincoln in respect of = the legs of sheep). This Law says that the played cards may be withdrawn = (because they were not played legally), and points to L49 which means that = West's card is a major penalty card. Now, there are two views that those of you who have a foolish regard for = equity and justice might take at this point. Some of you believe that = because it was South's error that caused West to commit his own infraction, = West should be treated as a non-offender and given the right to treat = South's ruff as a lead out of turn. There is no legal justifiication for = this - South's card cannot by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to = be a lead - but I can understand your moral outrage (and I have a solution = for you - see below). Others believe that West is just as responsible as = South for knowing whose lead it is and which trick is in progress; South = and West have both sinned as grievously as each other, but because South = happens to be declarer and West a defender, South will escape unpunished = while West must suffer a penalty card. Legally, you are quite right, and = since I have no morals, I will rule in your favour. Of course, if you appear before me on appeal and claim that South could = have known when he played out of turn that an advantage might thereby = accrue to his side by causing you to incur a penalty card, then under L72B1 = I will happily overturn my own ruling and adjust the score in order to do = equity. If I take especial care to use L12C3 in so doing, I trust that you = will not mind. As the free-verse cockroach put it: yours for less justice and more charity david From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 02:44:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:44:59 +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 CAA25093 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:44:52 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-89.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.89]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA5319603 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361A3E02.C6B3BD52@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:57:54 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: <199810060234.WAA05848@t5.mscf.uky.edu> <3619B3D8.17635CAA@freewwweb.com> <361A0F47.DA48B183@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not think that intentions of declarer are relevant. What matters is what was done, when, and possibly how. What happened? Four players each contributed a legal card to a trick, three of which have turned their cards thereby ending their play to that trick. After a time, Declarer, a player who has turned their card and did not win the trick, plays a card. No matter what he says or says he intended, it does not look like he is playing to a previous trick. [And given the potential insidious consequences of ruling it so, it hardly makes sense to rule it so.] It therefore follows that he has to be playing to a subsequent one. I think that the director invoking L50 to rule that LHO's card is not a penalty card is inappropriate. Further, when he does so, it still leaves the defenders open to a score adjustment and this seems a grossly inappropriate consequence to the crime that declarer committed and was held harmless. Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > I'm not responding to anyone in particular, just a general comment. > > South did not lead to the next trick, it was his impression that he was > following. > > L45E2 clearly states that the director can determine whether the card is > a lead (thus OOT) or a fifth card played > > West did not play to any trick that has started, so his card is simply a > shown card. L45E1 (although talking about a fifth card only - is this a > sixth one ?) also gives the TD the power to decide whether this is a > lead. > > L50 gives the power to the TD to NOT make the shown card a penalty card, > which is what I would do. > > Take your cards back and play on, gentlemen ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 02:44:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:44:51 +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 CAA25087 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 02:44:44 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-89.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.89]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA5202215 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361A39A6.F109BA6B@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:39:18 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: <199810061225.IAA01059@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies for losing my signature in my original post, it was late at night. John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > Axeman wrote: > > > > I looked all through the laws > > Then please cite which law applies to each paragraph! > > > and what I found is that each player is > > supposed to turn over their card after all four cards are exposed to a > > trick. > Agreed--Law 65A. > > The implication is strong that a player is not to play a > > subsequent card prior to turning his card to the previous trick. > Where? Law 65A doesn't use "should" or "must." We've debated these > semantics before :) Law 44 doesn't say anything about turning cards, > so I don't think that you were referring to that law. L65A says that each player turns his own card when all four cards have been played. L44G says that the winner of a trick leads to the next trick. This implies that [a] you play to a trick [b] after everyone plays to the trick you turn your card over [c] you then play to the next trick, supposedly in turn [L44B] > > What I also found that the player who won the last trick is the one who > > leads to the next trick. It does not say that the trick must be quitted > > before a lead is made is made to the next trick [assuredly it is best, > > though], merely that the trick must be won. > Agreed--Law 44A. > > As far as a fifth card to a trick, it seems that it would apply to > > instances when a card is stuck to another or a player turns their card > > prematurely and set in a rhythm plays an 'extra card'. > Not necessarily--in fact, Law 67A2 implies that the "stuck cards" would be > simultaneous cards and that any non-simultaneous play of cards would be > considered a "fifth card." Actually, L67A2 specifically refers to that instance [such as stuck cards] as a fifth card to a trick, naming L45E and L58B. This tends to imply that a card not in tempo, as in this case, looks like a lead, not a fifth card since [a] four cards were legally played to the trick and [b] declarer had properly turned over their card [as well as two others]. > > That declarer 'fails' to remember the winning card to the preceding > > trick and plays 'apparently thinking' that RHO has played a new king of > > clubs is a mental error- a mistake. It is every player's duty to pay > > attention and declarer did not do so. It is much clearer to me that > > declarer has played a card out of turn, being a LOOT and LHO has > > accepted it plus has failed to follow suit in the bargain. > It's a LOOT only if the trick is over. I'm still not convinced that the > trick is over. After four legally played cards have been contributed to a trick, the player who is the proper leader to the trick has been identified. Once a player has turned over their card he is ready to play to the next trick. Of course he ought to wait for the the whole table to turn over their cards before playing to the next trick. I think that it is more appropriate to say that a trick is over for a player once he turns his card and that once his card is turned over, he can not play another card to that trick without a ruling by a director [to correct a revoke or play an unplayed penalty card, for instance]. > > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > > card. > > The current thinking that declarer's play is a fifth card to a trick > > creates a real mess, creating damage to the defenders. After all, are > > the defenders the only ones culpable for stopping declarer 's > > irregularity. Imo, a player is most culpable for his own > > irregularities. Further, the laws make it a point that the next player > > in turn is permitted to play after a play out of turn. If there is no > > double standard, then play proceeds usually without aggravations from > > L16. L55A, L56, L57C. > >From my interpretation of the laws, well, there is a double standard. > Look at Law 47. In many instances, declarer may withdraw a card with > no penalty, but if defenders try to withdraw a card, it's a penalty card. > > I fail to see any posting that satisfactorily resolves this situation > > after declarer's irregular play and his LHO plays. I see no justice in > > punishing the other side because declarer committed an irregularity and > > the NOS did not catch it. Why is it a bigger crime to not catch > > someone else's crime in time? Just take a look at the punishment of > > LHO's play after declarer's ruled non-play. > And look at the punishment that the defenders will receive from a corrected > revoke! It's the same (since, depending on the trump LOOT play, East may > win the trick). I think you are referring to the fact that LHO did not follow suit to the trump LOOT. Of course, if it had become an established revoke there would be a revoke penalty. If corrected, there would be a penalty card etc. But if LHO had played a proper card, there would be no penalty to his side, but perhaps the defenders may have been better off had LHO had called the director and not accepted the LOOT. > The question remains: when is the trick over? If there was no irregularity in the play of 4 cards to the trick, the trick is over for a player once he turns his card over [and only a director can reopen the trick]. Once all four cards are turned over, the trick is quitted. > John > | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | John, do you know Bruce Gardner or Jo Echols? Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 03:25:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 03:25:47 +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 DAA25134 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 03:25:30 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2608.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.8]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA09187 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:28:53 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dummy ask declarer about revoke Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:34:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf14f$85af23c0$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: Geoff Francis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 4:45 PM Subject: Dummy ask declarer about revoke >Recently I was asked the following question: > >"Is a revoke by declarer established if dummy asks declarer if he has >revoked? i.e. does law 63B apply (is dummy's action illegal?) and are the >penalty tricks described in law 64A applicable?" > >I decided it was not established since dummy is, according to law 42B1, >allowed to ask. > >My colleague on the other hand thought that although dummy may pose the >question (i.e. there is no penalty for the question (42B1)), the revoke is >still established in exactly the same was as it is if one defender asks the >other (in non-ACBL countries) since dummy may not draw attention to any >irregularity (43A1b). This means that the actual penalty could be reduced >from two tricks (which it is likely to be if dummy does not ask) to one >trick by substituting a legal card which does not win the trick. > >Does anybody know what the actual decision should be? Dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity Law43A1b, but the first sentence of this Law is "Except as specified in Law 42". Law 42 gives dummy the right to ask. In asking after the card has been played dummy is carrying out his duty of preventing declarer from allowing the revoke to be established. The irregularity that he is preventing is the establishment of the revoke. Whether or not we should treat the action of correcting the first irregularity in the same way as we treat it when defenders have illegaly asked one another (non ACBL regs) is taken care of quite specifically in Law 62.A and Law 62B2. 62A ....A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of it before it is established, and, 62B2.... if it is declarer's card "The card may be replaced without penalty". This also applies to a revoke by dummy, or a revoke by a defender who has failed to play a faced (penalty) card. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 03:36:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 03:36:40 +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 DAA25173 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 03:36:34 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09043; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810061739.KAA09043@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:35:33 -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: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Let's enforce the rules according to the intent of those who wrote > > them, even if that intent is not literally conveyed by the words. > > I hadn't meant to write more on this thread, but it's worth a comment > here. If the written laws are unclear or if the literal meaning is in > obvious conflict with the spirit of the laws -- and ideally the > drafters would avoid either of these situations -- then enforcing the > intent is reasonable. But if the written rule is clear and not > ridiculous, then I argue for enforcement of the written rule regardless > of the intent. That was the point of the hockey example. I agree with you, Steve. If a law is completely unambiguous to everyone, then the meaning conveyed by it should prevail over any different intent that the writer had in mind. However, there have been a lot of picky "interpretations" of the Laws that are based on taking words in a much more literal sense, or in a merely alternative sense, than the meaning intended by the writer. In such cases, the writer's intent should prevail. Of course I am thinking of the definition of "convention," which some say makes every bid a convention. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 04:10:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:10:21 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA25214 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:10:15 +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 OAA25386 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:13:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA00664 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:13:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810061813.OAA00664@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy ask declarer about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > Dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity Law43A1b, but the first > sentence of this Law is "Except as specified in Law 42". Law 42 gives > dummy the right to ask. In asking after the card has been played dummy > is carrying out his duty of preventing declarer from allowing the revoke > to be established. The irregularity that he is preventing is the > establishment of the revoke. I don't disagree with the substance, but I think the semantics might be a bit clearer. L42B1 gives dummy the specific right (unless dummy's rights have been forfeited via 43A2) to ask declarer about a possible revoke. This has _nothing whatever_ to do with preventing irregularities, which is L42B2. As far as I can tell, there is no explicit time limit on dummy's L42B1 right, but the word "when" might be construed as connoting some limitation. As Anne says, L43 is explicitly subordinated to L42. (Got your notebook handy, Grattan? I wonder whether the "Except" clause at the beginning of L43 might be better placed inside L43A, but I don't think the meaning will change.) > Whether or not we should treat the action of correcting the first > irregularity in the same way as we treat it when defenders have illegaly > asked one another (non ACBL regs) is taken care of quite specifically in > Law 62.A and Law 62B2. I am not sure what this is getting at. If dummy has forfeited his rights, L43B2b tells us what to do. If he hasn't, the revoke is handled under L62 if not established or L63 and 64 if established. I think this may be what Anne was saying. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 04:21:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:21:06 +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 EAA25258 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:20:57 +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 OAA27212 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA09194 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:24:19 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810061824.OAA09194@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:24:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <361A39A6.F109BA6B@freewwweb.com> from "axeman" at Oct 6, 98 10:39:18 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 I'll do some major snippage to get to the point. Roger (axeman) wrote: > John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > Axeman wrote: > > > > > > As far as a fifth card to a trick, it seems that it would apply to > > > instances when a card is stuck to another or a player turns their card > > > prematurely and set in a rhythm plays an 'extra card'. > > > Not necessarily--in fact, Law 67A2 implies that the "stuck cards" would be > > simultaneous cards and that any non-simultaneous play of cards would be > > considered a "fifth card." > > Actually, L67A2 specifically refers to that instance [such as stuck > cards] as a fifth card to a trick, naming L45E and L58B. This tends to > imply that a card not in tempo, as in this case, looks like a lead, not > a fifth card since [a] four cards were legally played to the trick and > [b] declarer had properly turned over their card [as well as two > others]. OK, this might be getting somewhere. > > > That declarer 'fails' to remember the winning card to the preceding > > > trick and plays 'apparently thinking' that RHO has played a new king of > > > clubs is a mental error- a mistake. It is every player's duty to pay > > > attention and declarer did not do so. It is much clearer to me that > > > declarer has played a card out of turn, being a LOOT and LHO has > > > accepted it plus has failed to follow suit in the bargain. > > > It's a LOOT only if the trick is over. I'm still not convinced that the > > trick is over. > > After four legally played cards have been contributed to a trick, the > player who is the proper leader to the trick has been identified. Once > a player has turned over their card he is ready to play to the next > trick. Of course he ought to wait for the the whole table to turn over > their cards before playing to the next trick. I think that it is more > appropriate to say that a trick is over for a player once he turns his > card and that once his card is turned over, he can not play another card > to that trick without a ruling by a director [to correct a revoke or > play an unplayed penalty card, for instance]. I'm beginning to like your train of thought. It would be a lot easier if the law book contained an explanation of what qualified as a "fifth card"!! > I think you are referring to the fact that LHO did not follow suit to > the trump LOOT. Of course, if it had become an established revoke there > would be a revoke penalty. If corrected, there would be a penalty card > etc. But if LHO had played a proper card, there would be no penalty to > his side, but perhaps the defenders may have been better off had LHO had > called the director and not accepted the LOOT. That would have made the situation much more pleasant. Unfortunately, whatever funk that South had inhabited had spread to West, making West contribute the extra card. > > The question remains: when is the trick over? > > If there was no irregularity in the play of 4 cards to the trick, the > trick is over for a player once he turns his card over [and only a > director can reopen the trick]. Once all four cards are turned over, > the trick is quitted. I like this differentiation. I just wish that the FLB would state this explicitly. I've tried to apply contrapositives and other logical tools to the Trick Laws to get either this conclusion (or, in all honesty, any conclusion), but alas it has been to no avail. Tonight's my night to direct at my club. I'll ask "the experts" there and see if they have any insights that have been missed. > John, do you know Bruce Gardner or Jo Echols? Sure don't, sorry. Should I know them through the University or through the Lexington Bridge Club? There was a Gardner who used to play at the club before he moved down to Florida. His brother has played out of Pensacola for a while. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 04:22:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:22:05 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA25272 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 04:21:58 +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 OAA25998 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA00691 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:25:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810061825.OAA00691@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > Of course I am thinking > of the definition of "convention," which some say makes every bid a > convention. No one has said any such ridiculous thing, as far as I know. It is a straw man argument introduced by people who are unhappy with the literal meaning of the definition. I have said, along with several others, that the literal meaning of the definition makes nearly every _opening bid_ in real bidding systems a convention. That meaning doesn't seem at all ridiculous or contrary to the spirit of the laws, although it is certainly contrary to custom and not the result I myself would prefer. At Lille, the WBFLC told us that the real definition of convention is "I know one when I see one." (Their actual words were something about "general bridge knowledge.") This is likewise not a result I favor, but it may be the best we can do until the definition is rewritten. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 05:32:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:32:39 +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 FAA25436 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:32:32 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-149.uunet.be [194.7.14.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10641 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:41:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361A3454.694F42DE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 16:16:37 +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: Centering at Butler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At DWS' request, I write this to the whole list. Uninterested lurkers please delete. The problem, as stated by David Martin and Steve Willner, deals with the fact that in Butler scoring, the average of the awarded IMPs is not automatically zero. This leads, according to these posters, to inequities when using this method of calculation in combination with unbalanced movements. According to David Martin, it may even be necessary to adapt some movements in order to compensate for this phenomenon. In the view of some, it is a reason to dispense with Butler alltogether and switch to cross-IMPs exclusively. Cross-IMPs, while possibly theoretically more "correct" has some other disadvantages though, which leads us to keep Butler also in the frame. Steve's approach is to force Butler to have an average of zero, and he gives a few methods for doing so. That is what he calls centering. I would like to stay away from the side issues, and ony tackle the problem as to whether or not Butler scores should be centered. Why don't Butler scores average to zero in the first place ? - in the first place there is the problem of rounding. If there are 6 results of +600 and 4 of +630, then the average will be +612. This will lead to 6 scores of 0 and 4 of +1, so the average is +0.4. This is easily countrable by switching to Bastille. In Bastille, there will be 6 scores of -0.4 and 4 of +0.6, so the average is zero. I am not advocating Bastille on this sole ground however ... - secondly there is the non-linearity of the IMP scales. If there are 8 scores of +600 and 2 of -100 then the average is 460. In Butler, this leads to 8 results of +4 and 2 of -11 (average +1) Even in Bastille, this will be 8 times +3.875 and 2 times -11.15, for an average of +0.87. The reason is of course that around zero, 30 points equal 1 IMP, but around 500, there are 100 points to the IMP. Steve has some suggestions that would correct the average such that this is no longer the case. I find those suggestions difficult and unnecessary. -thirdly there is the problem of the drop-out scores. While these do not influence the datum score, they do get a result, which is counted in the "average". Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score will be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring -21 (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score +1.75, thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested this. Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP system, as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but since this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 06:55:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:55:18 +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 GAA25593 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:55:07 +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 QAA04743 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA00955 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810062058.QAA00955@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Centering at Butler X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > The problem, as stated by David Martin and Steve Willner, deals with the > fact that in Butler scoring, the average of the awarded IMPs is not > automatically zero. Herman's explanation of the problems is correct. You will have to form your own opinion of the merits and difficulty of alleviating them. > This leads, according to these posters, to inequities when using this > method of calculation in combination with unbalanced movements. The scoring problems exist even if the movement is balanced. They are less obvious because no pairs play exactly the same set of boards in the same direction. > According to David Martin, it may even be necessary to adapt some > movements in order to compensate for this phenomenon. Movements deal with different problems. We don't put all the good players NS and the bad ones EW, play a Mitchell, and then claim that the EW winner's score should be compared to the NS winner's. This has nothing to do with the scoring method. > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score will > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring -21 > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score +1.75, Well, eleven pairs will score +1.75, and one will score -19.25. This does not do away with dropping extremes, and it is exactly what I had in mind. Cross-imps takes care of this automatically, and I would call it an advantage, not a drawback. Similarly, in the EW line, one pair will score +19.25. More important, the difference between the "lucky" EW pair and a typical NS pair is now 19.25-1.75=17.50, not 21.0 as it would have been without recentering. The lucky pair is still a favorite to win the event, regardless of other boards, but at least the margin is somewhat reduced. The "big score" problem (or perhaps it's a feature) is inherent in IMP pair events, and it cannot be eliminated by scoring methods, but it can be magnified or reduced. I really need to write my little essay on a new scoring method. > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but since > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? Well, maybe you don't. You have introduced an extra source of randomness or equivalently decreased the "effective" number of boards played. If you like randomness, this is a good thing. My own opinion is that IMP pair games are _too_ random already, and decreasing randomness where you can easily do so is beneficial. But if someone else disagrees, no one can say his preference is wrong. Perhaps this person would like total point (aggregate) competition even better. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 06:56:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:56:18 +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 GAA25609 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:56:11 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-89.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.89]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA5538621 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361A85AA.1A26F8CD@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 16:03:38 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is the situation so much about when a trick ends or is more about when a new trick begins? What law permits a card to be changed to a trick of four legally played cards on which no irregularity has occurred [at least up until after the fourth card was played]? Everyone except me seems to feel that there is incompatibility between the two. Which reminds me. Was not declarer's own reason given for the play of a trump that 'they thought they were playing to the next trick'? So, if they thought they were playing to the next trick, how could they have intended to contribute the card to the previous trick [the fifth card']. If they thought that they were playing to the next trick does it not follow that since it was the first play to the next trick is a lead, albeit, LOOT? If I remember the story correctly, a situation occurred at the US team trials where a defender had failed to follow suit. Their partner said something like 'Hey, what's going on here?'. Then partner says something like 'Oh!' pulls out a card intending to correct his revoke. The director ruled that his intention did not matter. It was ruled that the card was the one being played to the next trick and that the revoke was established. The perpetrator thought that the ruling was not 'fair'- at least until later when he found out the director's reasoning. I don't remember if it was appealed. Why must we resort to intricate rulings which make criminals of the bystanders and absolve the criminals of their crime? This situation occurred to me. Four cards are played to a trick which in fact contains a revoke. It is the partner of the revoker who won the trick. One player has not turned their card, yet a card is played from the hand that won the trick. According to the logic, we say because all the cards have not been turned, then the only active trick is the last trick for all players. Therefore, the revoke is not established and can be corrected the normal way. I think this is neither a sound interpretation of the law nor logical nor sensible. I still contend that four cards played without irregularity constitute a trick [an irregularity does not necessarily preclude any four cards from being a trick, but the TD may rule that such a trick must be corrected] and identify the leader to the next trick. Turning the card is the proper procedure, but not turning it does not alter the fact that no cards may be changed to the trick. Absent stuck cards or a 5th card [not by the winner of the trick] in tempo [with the desire to play to that trick] to the trick, the next card played is a lead to the next trick. It seems that the situation is a mechanical one and in rare occasions the TD will find that indeed a fifth card was played. I find little to justify, let alone the serving of justice to rule that declarer has a non played card while LHO has a penalty card. Further complicating matters is the time taken to summon the director at the end of the hand in order get him to rule under L72B for an adjustment, and then go further to appeal that ruling. On the other side, there is much to be said for the justice of ruling that declarer has lead. LHO gets to accept or reject the LOOT and if he accepts, then his side loses the benefit of partner being on lead and there is no further need for director rulings. Of course, since LHO apparently revoked, his correction of the revoke creates a penalty card, which is fair and just. As far a one of the possible tests for a 'fifth card' it also seems to me that when one contestant plays 'an extra card' it might be ruled a 'fifth card' but not necessarily. However, when a second contestant in turn plays 'an extra card' it is a new trick. I do not like the idea of the director making a ruling that creates the damage unnecessarily. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > Axeman wrote: > > --------snip-------- > > > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > card. > > and Jan Peter wrote: > > Yes, you can justify that by "deeming it [South's small trump] as > led" (L45c2, and from there to L55) > > If a trick ends when and not before all four players have turned their cards face down, then trick 2 has not ended at the point when South "ruffs" the CK.(L65A seems to support this interpretation of when a trick is completed). I would have some difficulty in deeming South's card to be a "lead" in that case - to deem a card to be a "lead", one needs to be satisfied that the player intended to lead it (i.e that it should be the first card played to the trick as per the Definitions). At least, I would imagine that those who believe intent to be relevant as far as the Laws are concerned would not consider that a player who clearly intended to ruff an enemy card could possibly have intended to lead. > > If one accepts that the current trick is still in progress when South ruffs, then he has played a fifth card to the trick, and it is subject to L45E2 (which says that there is no penalty). West has played a sixth card to the trick, and dummy a seventh, but these are not covered by any Law other than 48B (those who wanted to treat them as "higher-order fifth cards" are commended to study the sayings of Abraham Lincoln in respect of the legs of sheep). This Law says that the played cards may be withdrawn (because they were not played legally), and points to L49 which means that West's card is a major penalty card. > > Now, there are two views that those of you who have a foolish regard for equity and justice might take at this point. Some of you believe that because it was South's error that caused West to commit his own infraction, West should be treated as a non-offender and given the right to treat South's ruff as a lead out of turn. There is no legal justifiication for this - South's card cannot by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to be a lead - but I can understand your moral outrage (and I have a solution for you - see below). Others believe that West is just as responsible as South for knowing whose lead it is and which trick is in progress; South and West have both sinned as grievously as each other, but because South happens to be declarer and West a defender, South will escape unpunished while West must suffer a penalty card. Legally, you are quite right, and since I have no morals, I will rule in your favour. > > Of course, if you appear before me on appeal and claim that South could have known when he played out of turn that an advantage might thereby accrue to his side by causing you to incur a penalty card, then under L72B1 I will happily overturn my own ruling and adjust the score in order to do equity. If I take especial care to use L12C3 in so doing, I trust that you will not mind. > > As the free-verse cockroach put it: > > yours for less justice > and more charity > david From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 07:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:32:28 +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 HAA25700 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:32:22 +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 RAA21272 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810062135.RAA29837@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199810062058.QAA00955@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Centering at Butler Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > From: Herman De Wael >> Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score will >> be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring -21 >> (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. >> If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score +1.75, > Well, eleven pairs will score +1.75, and one will score -19.25. This > does not do away with dropping extremes, and it is exactly what I had > in mind. Cross-imps takes care of this automatically, and I would call > it an advantage, not a drawback. And it happens almost as much at matchpoints. The eleven intelligent N-S tables get 6 rather than 5.5 matchpoints, and the lucky E-W pair gets a top and a 5-matchpoint lead in the overalls. -- 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 Oct 7 08:24:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:59 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25858 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:50 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQfaW-0004hG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:28:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:15:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy ask declarer about revoke In-Reply-To: <000001bdf13f$234fade0$7c3b79c3@geoff-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Geoff Francis wrote: >Recently I was asked the following question: > >"Is a revoke by declarer established if dummy asks declarer if he has >revoked? i.e. does law 63B apply (is dummy's action illegal?) and are the >penalty tricks described in law 64A applicable?" > >I decided it was not established since dummy is, according to law 42B1, >allowed to ask. > >My colleague on the other hand thought that although dummy may pose the >question (i.e. there is no penalty for the question (42B1)), the revoke is >still established in exactly the same was as it is if one defender asks the >other (in non-ACBL countries) since dummy may not draw attention to any >irregularity (43A1b). This means that the actual penalty could be reduced >from two tricks (which it is likely to be if dummy does not ask) to one >trick by substituting a legal card which does not win the trick. > >Does anybody know what the actual decision should be? L61B says that dummy may ask declarer so the question is an entirely legal one. Well ...... OK, it is not quite as simple as that. Dummies used to exchange their hands, walk round the table and look at declarer's hand, or look at the defence's hands. These are outlawed by L43A2 and the practices have nearly been stamped out. But *if* a dummy does one of these things then he is barred from warning declarer that he may have revoked and L43B2B applies if he asks and declarer has revoked. As a TD you are likely to get one of these cases less often than Herman buys me a whisky. Hi Geoff: nice to see you! For statistical purposes: Do you have any any cats? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 08:24:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:58 +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 IAA25860 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQfaW-0004hF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:28:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:04:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <199810061522.LAA00426@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I hadn't meant to write more on this thread, but it's worth a comment >here. If the written laws are unclear or if the literal meaning is in >obvious conflict with the spirit of the laws -- and ideally the >drafters would avoid either of these situations -- then enforcing the >intent is reasonable. But if the written rule is clear and not >ridiculous, then I argue for enforcement of the written rule regardless >of the intent. That was the point of the hockey example. I think some of my strongest disagreements with Grattan have been and are over this point. A certain very sensible person, after seeing the minutes from Lille, said something along the lines of "Are the WBFLC saying that we should ignore the Laws when ruling?" to which I could only reply "Yes." I do wonder when the Laws are clear why the WBFLC think it is practical to tell us to do something different and I am of the 'change the Laws or accept the obvious interpretation' camp. Of course, there is also the matter of commonsense. At least the statement from Lille about when we use L25B has some commonsense about it even if it is in direct contradiction with the letter of the Law. The question of whether you can ask about specific bids can best be summed up by the person who heard that the WBFLC had said you could not by asking "Do any of the people on the WBFLC play bridge at all?" [similar source to previous quote]. The WBFLC is struggling with a change in communication levels and I grant that it is difficult for them for that reason. However, that is no excuse for some of their decisions. As is well known here, I do not think that the same people who make the Laws should also interpret them. The jury is still out on this one but the generally promulgated minutes of Lille did nothing for the WBFLC's case as the main Laws-interpreter. While there seems little doubt that it is correctly laid down that they are that body at this moment some thought might be given at WBF level to changing to a more satisfactory system. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 08:25:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:25:06 +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 IAA25859 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:50 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQfaW-0004hE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:28:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:51:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: <01bdf12a$64a07640$e4c7420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: John A Kuchenbrod > >>The question remains: when is the trick over? > >Law 65 A L65A does not say when the trick is over. It tells each player what to do, nothing more. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 11:01:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:01:35 +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 LAA26442 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:01:28 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQi28-0006mX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:04:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:46:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: <7ks$4AA1EKG2Ew0G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7ks$4AA1EKG2Ew0G@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > > So, David, the answer to your specific question... >>Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that >>> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that >>> avoid the problem? >...is that there are other considerations as well, and it is bonkers to >use a movement where even tables and odd arrow-switch at different >times, or where you arrow-switch odd boards throughout the evening, or >similar, because the increase in fairness does not outweigh the effects >of the dislocation. > I agree with the tenor, but not the content. Of course it's stupid to have people changing floors for the sake of decimal points, and I have resisted suggested changes which as Director I believe are unworkable. There is very little problem in arrow-switching the odd numbered tables on the penultimate round of a 12 or 13 round Mitchell (if the Director is awake) "Move please and odd numbered tables arrowswitch" does the job quite adequately. The last round "move please and all tables arrowswitch, please remove the curtain cards from the boards and bring the travellers to the computer desk" on the last round is significantly more complicated. DavidB is pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness, on this point, and even if I'm bonkers I'm still pretty practical. The improvement in fairness is only worthwhile when it causes minimal disruption, which this change does. We avoid stanza Howells (almost entirely fair) across three floors during the Marathon for that reason. With the layout we have we nonetheless are making such changes as we can to improve the fairness where such changes cause minimal disruption. eg starting table 1 with board set 8 in one section and arrowswitching the last four rounds improves the balance substantially (the one eightth hand waving bit only applies to single session movements). 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 Oct 7 11:01:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:01:35 +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 LAA26441 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:01:28 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zQi28-0006n8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:04:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:23:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes >> >> >> ########### A pity that DALB won't be reading this but if I offered >> to increase a player's score by between 1% and 2% per session by >> entirely legal means then I bet that an awful lot of players would be >> interested. Why then should we continue to used flawed movements that >> randomly do this to players when we can use much fairer ones that >> avoid the problem? ########### >> >> >> Sorry but I omitted to say that the circumstances where a Mitchell has zero competition between the NS and EW line is when you play all of the opposite line opponents an equal number of times (eg 8 round 8-table share and relay, or 9 table 9 round for example). Incomplete movements are flawed. eg you miss playing against DavidB (good) or DavidM (bad) :) On the subject of Butler and arrow switches, my remark about the jury being out was a reference to the research that David Martin and I keep promising to undertake to try to find the co-efficients that work for Cross-imping and (pace DavidM) my assertion that Butler produces not dissimilar results to cross imping (whilst not being "pure"). We think (hand waving again) that we should switch much more than one eightth of the boards BTW. Like DavidM, my only interest in this is in trying to produce the levellest possible playing field. This was a big surprise: The Young Chelsea Marathon has serious problems with balance which David is addressing, and of which we were totally unaware until he looked at it. (But you play against everyone the argument goes so it must be fair. Nope it ain't and by quite serious amounts) It could be as much as 3% I recall him telling me. Given the winning Marathon score is typically 59.6% and the 1st prize is substantial I think it is appropriate that these things should be and are being resolved. To paraphrase DavidB "if you play well and sit in the right seat you will win" 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 Oct 7 11:18:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:18:42 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA26476 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:18:37 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01878; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810070121.SAA01878@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:18:57 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com id SAA01878 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to all for rehashing an old subject in the following. Those who are tired of reading about the definition of "convention" will please hit the delete key. Steve Willner writes: >=20 > From: "Marvin L. French"=20 > > Of course I am thinking > > of the definition of "convention," which some say makes every bid a > > convention.=20 >=20 > No one has said any such ridiculous thing, as far as I know. It is a > straw man argument introduced by people who are unhappy with the > literal meaning of the definition. Excuse me, I should have said, "makes every opening bid a convention." Careless of me, although I believe at least one prominent contributor to RGB has said this repeatedly. > I have said, along with several others, that the literal meaning of the > definition makes nearly every _opening bid_ in real bidding systems a > convention. That meaning doesn't seem at all ridiculous or contrary to > the spirit of the laws, although it is certainly contrary to custom and > not the result I myself would prefer. And not the meaning, according to Grattan and the WBF LC, as I understand them. >=20 > At Lille, the WBFLC told us that the real definition of convention is > "I know one when I see one." (Their actual words were something about > "general bridge knowledge.") This is likewise not a result I favor > but it may be the best we can do until the definition is rewritten. Their actual words were, according to Grattan: > 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++ This is a very poorly worded statement, but the gist is clear: If an opening bid merely conveys the information that a denomination other than the one named is not a superior one for play from opener's point of view, that is an inference coming from general bridge knowledge, and it does not make the opening bid a convention. I think the WBF LC attacks the misinterpretation from the wrong direction. I maintain that the the definition's words: "conveys a meaning other than a willingness to play in the denomination named" is equivalent to "does not convey a willingness to play in the denomination named." This is the interpretation adopted in the French version of the Laws ("ne montre pas l'intention de jouer dans la d=E9nomination faite"), so don't anyone tell me it's unreasonable. The problem with this interpretation is that it means an opening bid that shows a willingness to play in the denomination named, plus something about another denomination, would not be a convention. I consider this to be an oversight by whoever wrote the definition. If so, trying to cover up that oversight by such a statement as issued by the WBF LC is misguided. Another possibility is that the oversight was a different one, and that "conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named" was meant to be equivalent to "conveys some meaning in addition to willingness to play in the denomination named." If so, the writer overlooked what a wide variety of "otherness" that the definition could comprise. He should have been more specific about the word "other." That would be difficult to express, but not impossible. We all know what constitutes a convention. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 14:58:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:58:04 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26713 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:57:56 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-181.access.net.il [192.116.198.181]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id HAA08785; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:01:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <361AF58C.9C032FBD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 07:01:00 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810062135.RAA29837@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning all respectable people I would like to know if there is any decision of WBF or any hint in Laws what are the computation principle for scoring method in a field ????? (not L77+L78 for each board.....) Thank you Dany David Grabiner wrote: > > Steve Willner writes: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > >> Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score will > >> be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring -21 > >> (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > >> If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score +1.75, > > > Well, eleven pairs will score +1.75, and one will score -19.25. This > > does not do away with dropping extremes, and it is exactly what I had > > in mind. Cross-imps takes care of this automatically, and I would call > > it an advantage, not a drawback. > > And it happens almost as much at matchpoints. The eleven intelligent > N-S tables get 6 rather than 5.5 matchpoints, and the lucky E-W pair > gets a top and a 5-matchpoint lead in the overalls. > > -- > 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 Oct 7 15:23:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:23:57 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA26746 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:23:50 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-181.access.net.il [192.116.198.181]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id HAA13652; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:27:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <361AFB9E.E5618AEE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 07:26:54 +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: clear rules References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > .......snip........... > >intent is reasonable. But if the written rule is clear and not > >ridiculous, then I argue for enforcement of the written rule regardless > >of the intent. That was the point of the hockey example. > > I think some of my strongest disagreements with Grattan have been and > are over this point. > Of course, there is also the matter of commonsense. Aha - so you agree that my suggestion for Law 99 should be a part of the laws ........ At least the > statement from Lille about when we use L25B has some commonsense about > it even if it is in direct contradiction with the letter of the Law. > The question of whether you can ask about specific bids can best be > summed up by the person who heard that the WBFLC had said you could not > by asking "Do any of the people on the WBFLC play bridge at all?" > [similar source to previous quote]. This one.. I am not too enthusiastic. I know personally some of the WNFLC's member , especially TON and I know that he tries to manage all the tournaments according to my Law 0.... > The WBFLC is struggling with a change in communication levels and I > grant that it is difficult for them for that reason. However, that is > no excuse for some of their decisions. > As is well known here, I do not think that the same people who make > the Laws should also interpret them. The jury is still out on this one > but the generally promulgated minutes of Lille did nothing for the > WBFLC's case as the main Laws-interpreter. While there seems little > doubt that it is correctly laid down that they are that body at this > moment some thought might be given at WBF level to changing to a more > satisfactory system. I have another suggestion - "the bridge constitution" , which consists of my Law 0 , my Law 99 and the existing Law 44C ......... These can't be interpreted !!!! The FLB should be interpreted , and the WBFLC should be the formal instance to do it . As Grattan wrote , he hopes that sooner than we think , there will be some changes for clearness in the laws ; then it will be easier to accept my suggestion Dany -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 16:31:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:31:04 +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 QAA26844 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:30:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA08906 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810070633.XAA08906@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:31:50 -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 Herman De Wael wrote, in part: > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score will > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring -21 > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score +1.75, > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > this. > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP system, > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > I don't understand this last statement. Cross-IMP scoring would give all but one NS zero IMPs on 10 comparisons and 21 IMPs on one comparison, a total of 21 IMPs for each of 11 NSs, +231 altogether. That seems exactly right, as the -2200 is a perfectly legitimate result suffered by an opposing pair. The division by 12 (results) to obtain 1.75 is not a necessity, it's just done to provide smaller numbers on the score sheet. The 12th NS, who was -2200, will score -21 on all 11 comparisons, a total of -231, or -19.25 after dividing. The total of all scores is zero, as always. The Cavendish Invitational uses Cross-IMP scoring, doesn't bother with any division, and I don't think anyone would consider the scoring on a board like this as a "drawback" of that type of game. There is the consideration that 11 pairs sitting the other way will lose 1.75 IMPs each for what is probably a perfectly normal result, while one will gain a windfall of 19.25 IMPs. That's the way things go in duplicate pair games, whether IMP-Pairs or matchpoint pairs. Throwing out valid scores in order to level the playing field for IMP-Pairs makes no more sense to me than it would in a matchpoint pair game. Playing Butler, I bid and make a cold 4S while everyone else passes the hand out, and they don't lose IMPs because my score is not in the datum? Now that's what I call a real drawback! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 21:06:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:06:13 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27269 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:06:04 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-91.uunet.be [194.7.9.91]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13121 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361B556F.1D12281C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 12:50:07 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810062058.QAA00955@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > (lots of things snipped that I not necessarily agree or disagree upon) > > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but since > > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > Well, maybe you don't. You have introduced an extra source of > randomness or equivalently decreased the "effective" number of boards > played. If you like randomness, this is a good thing. My own opinion > is that IMP pair games are _too_ random already, and decreasing > randomness where you can easily do so is beneficial. But if someone > else disagrees, no one can say his preference is wrong. Perhaps this > person would like total point (aggregate) competition even better. Now that is a totally different problem ! When you state that IMP games are more random than MP ones, I agree with you. This means that a serious tournament in IMPs should be longer. OK. But when you are deducing from that that Butler is more (or less) random than Cross-IMPs, you are jumping to conclusions you should not be making. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 7 21:06:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:06:09 +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 VAA27268 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:06:02 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-91.uunet.be [194.7.9.91]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13115 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361B53D0.23368470@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 12:43:12 +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: Re: Butler Scoring References: <199810070633.XAA08906@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, in part: > > > > > > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > system, > > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > > > I don't understand this last statement. > > Cross-IMP scoring would give all but one NS zero IMPs on 10 > comparisons and 21 IMPs on one comparison, a total of 21 IMPs for > each of 11 NSs, +231 altogether. That seems exactly right, as the > -2200 is a perfectly legitimate result suffered by an opposing > pair. The division by 12 (results) to obtain 1.75 is not a > necessity, it's just done to provide smaller numbers on the score > sheet. The 12th NS, who was -2200, will score -21 on all 11 > comparisons, a total of -231, or -19.25 after dividing. The total > of all scores is zero, as always. > Of course it is. But the main point of Butler is that the +1.75 for every NS is not considered "fair". I don't want to go into this, but you can't have (this kind of) "fair" and "centered" at the same time. Which is the reason why I say that "centered" at Butler ought not to be a consideration. Then we can have Butler co-exist with Cross-IMPs, both with a different notion of what is "fair". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 00:37:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:37:41 +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 AAA00155 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:37:35 +1000 Received: from ip75.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.75]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981007144058.EYSU2535.fep4@ip75.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:40:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:40:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <361da95e.3032911@post12.tele.dk> References: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@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 Thanks to Steve and to David Burn for two excellent contributions about the basics of our laws. The purpose of a type 1 law is to achieve simplicity and consistency. The purpose of a type 2 law is to achieve fairness in the form of an approximation to the score that would have been achieved without the irregularity. Score adjustments are the way of doing this. It seems to me that we have some laws that do neither: type 1 laws which in an attempt to improve the fairness have become more complicated than a corresponding type 2 law would be. We should get rid of those. Our revoke penalties are not fair: score adjustment (type 2) would be fair. They are not easy to understand, partly because the wording of L64A2 is ambiguous or wrong (at least to simple Danes like me who believe that the word "subsequently" following the semicolon naturally means "subsequent to the event described before the semicolon" rather than "subsequent to the revoke"). Even when understood correctly by the TD, they are not simple for the players: planning the play to win tricks on a specific hand is not something that beginners are taught. A much simpler rule would be: always transfer 1 trick, use L64C to also get reasonable fairness. The rules for exposed cards (penalty cards) are not fair: score adjustment (type 2) using only the existing UI rules would be fair. They are not simple: look at the expression on the face of a club player who has just had the penalty card rules explained to him. Since 1997 their UI implications (which make the penalty card rules type 2 to a large extent) can be interpreted logically only in a way that is in conflict with the WBFLC's recent statement. I would like such laws to be replaced either by simple type 1 rules or by fair type 2 rules (score adjustment if damage occurred; no other penalty). In general, I'd like more type 1 rules (I don't mind the OS getting an "unfairly" bad score or the NOS getting an "undeserved" good score for the sake of simplicity), but only if they really are simple. I much prefer type 2 rules to the two type 1 rules I've mentioned above. David Stevenson wrote: > I do wonder when the Laws are clear why the WBFLC think it is >practical to tell us to do something different and I am of the 'change >the Laws or accept the obvious interpretation' camp. So am I. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 02:06:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:06:47 +1000 Received: from smtp01.wxs.nl (smtp01.wxs.nl [195.121.6.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00506 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:06:41 +1000 Received: from geoff-laptop ([195.121.58.145]) by smtp01.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB87C for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:09:38 +0200 Message-ID: <000e01bdf215$68fd2ee0$913a79c3@geoff-laptop> From: "Geoff Francis" To: Subject: Change of call Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:04:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following scenario: East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! (West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 tricks) What should the TD decide ? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 02:39:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:39:19 +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 CAA00564 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:39:13 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.241] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zQwcs-0005Md-00; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:39:46 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bdf211$6e927620$f12e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Tricky problem Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:42:10 +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 Just been watching a quiz programme on television. One of the questions was: "Who wrote the novel Tom Jones?" If you gave the right answer, would you be disqualified for Fielding? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 02:49:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:49:30 +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 CAA00587 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:49:23 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20194 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:47:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199810071647.LAA20194@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: clear rules To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:47:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Let's enforce the rules according to the intent of those who wrote > > them, even if that intent is not literally conveyed by the words. > > I hadn't meant to write more on this thread, but it's worth a comment > here. If the written laws are unclear or if the literal meaning is in > obvious conflict with the spirit of the laws -- and ideally the > drafters would avoid either of these situations -- then enforcing the > intent is reasonable. But if the written rule is clear and not > ridiculous, then I argue for enforcement of the written rule regardless > of the intent. That was the point of the hockey example. > My position seems to have few supporters, but I disagree. The problem in your hockey example was not that the 'actual' rule did not correspond to the written rule. The problem was that _this_ official picked this moment to enfore the written rule after it had not been enforced that way all season. If he had conformed to the practice of all officials that season, there would have been no protest or dispute, even though this would go against the written rule. Consider baseball. There is an official strike-zone written in the rules, but in fact different umpires have their own strike-zones, most of which do not conform to the rules. Although there in occasional griping about this from fans and theoreticians, there are no complaints from the players involved. {They may complain if an umpire is inconsistent or misses an obvious call, but that's another matter.} As long as the players know what the umpire's strike-zone is, and as long as it is the same throughout the game and for both teams, no-one minds. So it seems to me that what really matters in games is not whether the written rules are enforced, or whether the rules are of Type 1 or Type 2, but rather whether the players involved _know what to expect_. In the hockey example, the problem was caused because the players legitimately expected the goal to count, but the official ruled that it did not. Consequently, I have no problem with adjudicating the game according to the intent of the WBFLC, or according to the written letter of the law, or according to common TD practice. Any of those are fine, as long as there is some way to communicate to the players what rules they can expect to be evaluated under. _This_ is the sort of 'fairness' that seems most important. {Of course, it should be obvious that this means that 'WBFLC interpretation' is the most difficult of these in practice, since the written rules or common practice are both much easier to communicate to the players. But if the WBFLC develops some reliable method of transmitting their interpretations to the players [or to the Club/Tourney Directors who can then pass it along], this system is fine with me.} Current practice in this regard, unfortunately, leaves much to be desired. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 04:09:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:09:07 +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 EAA00890 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:08:58 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.47] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zQy23-0002ad-00; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:09:51 +0100 Message-ID: <002801bdf21d$f97e0180$2f2f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:11:57 +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 Jesper wrote: The purpose of a type 1 law is to achieve simplicity and consistency. The purpose of a type 2 law is to achieve fairness in the form of an approximation to the score that would have been achieved without the irregularity. Score adjustments are the way of doing this. It seems to me that we have some laws that do neither: type 1 laws which in an attempt to improve the fairness have become more complicated than a corresponding type 2 law would be. We should get rid of those. [DALB] It is important to consider why type 2 rules have come into being. Initially, they were all based on thinking of this kind: "We have set out how the game should be played using a set of type 1 rules. Now, in order to make our game "fair", "just" and "reasonable", let us set out a system of penalties for breaches of the type 1 rules that make it not worth a player's while to break them." This system of penalties forms, in essence, the type 2 superstructure that is built on the type 1 infrastructure. The revoke law is a prime example. The type 1 rule "you must follow suit if you can" could be broken at will unless there was a penalty for so doing that made breaking the law not worth while. (There is no assumption that players will by nature, or upbringing, be inclined to play "fairly" - rather, the assumption is that they will not unless it is in their interests to do so.) Typically, if a player ruffs a trick to which he could have followed, he will thereby gain a trick. "Let us", said the early lawmakers, "so arrange that not only does he not gain the trick [to restore equity] but loses an extra trick [as a deterrent to trying the same thing again, and as a punishment for trying it in the first place]." Now, these twin elements of "restitution" and "deterrence combined with punishment" are present in society's laws - if you steal my money and are caught before you've spent it, then not only do you have to give it back [restitution], but you have to go to prison [deterrence and punishment]. Most people are happy with these two aspects of the law of the land, and do not demur when the principle is carried over into the game of bridge. Well, this type 2 law "works" in some but not all cases. If a player with Qx over dummy's AKJxxxx follows to the ace, discards on the king, and wins the third round with the queen, he may very well gain five tricks thereby. Making him give back only two of them is clearly not "fair". So, we adjust the Law to provide that when a player gains more than two tricks by revoking, he has to give back those tricks that he has gained. In so doing, we "forget about" the element of deterrence, so that a player who gains one trick by revoking is penalised an additional trick, while a player who gains five is not penalised at all. The reason we do this is that by now, we have lost track of our original assumption, for we are unwilling to believe that anyone would be so dastardly as to fail to follow suit on purpose - whereas that was precisely what we did believe when we formulated the original revoke law. Our conscience now begins to trouble us; if a player with xx over dummy's AKQJxxx follows to the first round, shows out on the second, and shows back in again on the third, he has gained no material advantage thereby (though he may have gained a strategic one). We do not think it "fair" that a player who commits this second revoke should have to suffer the same penalty as a dastard who gained five tricks by committing my first example revoke. So we make another change, to the effect that if declarer makes the rest anyway, the revoke goes completely unpunished. In the same spirit, we decree that a player who does not win a trick with a card that he kept as a result of his revoke should suffer no more than a one-trick penalty, while a player who wins a trick with a card that he could have played had he not revoked loses that trick also... The result? Well, you all know the revoke law, and you all know what a complete shambles it has turned into. Some vestige of the original law and its original purpose remain: if you ruff when you could have followed, you have to hand back that trick. But the rest is completely arbitrary: whether or not your revoke attracts an additional "penalty" depends on some wholly arbitrary circumstance such as whether or not declarer has the rest of the tricks, or the rest but one, or lots of subsequent losers. In some cases, as Jesper rightly points out, you are forced to play a game that is not actually bridge at all, because you need to calculate the effect of playing a card that you could have played to the revoke trick at some later time, and when you do play such a card, partner may have to wonder whether it's worth while overtaking it, and so on. I think that so far what I have said, while complicated, is not contentious. Everything that has been done since the Laws were first written has been done in accordance with this noble senitment: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure". Or, as others have said, the Laws are designed to provide [only] redress from damage, not punishment for inflicting the damage in the first place. Now this, while superficially something that no reasonable person could disagree with, is in my view one of the most harmful and foolish approaches that has ever been taken by the administrative body of any game. It renders the game itself absurdly complex, it ensures that the game will be dominated at the highest level by rulings that are wholly subjective and (in large part) incomprehensible, it means that newcomers to the game will not have an inkling of the rules by which it is actually played. In my opinion, the Laws of bridge should be like the laws of other games: they should start from the premise that people will play unfairly unless it is made contrary to their interests to do so. I have argued in the past, not entirely sarcastically, that the penalty for a revoke should be death. If it were, then the game would very soon be played only by those who could follow suit, and we would not need the nightmare that is Law 64. Eric Landau said in an earlier post, in reply to my analogy with the laws of golf: 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. [DALB] The rules say that you may not carry a fifteenth club. Of course, they say this because the lawmakers think that in order to provide a true test of golfing skill, a player should be limited in terms of the number of clubs he has at his disposal [a type 2 reason, but a type 1 rule]. By implication, therefore, you may not have fifteen because if you did, you could use the fifteenth to play a shot that would otherwise be "impossible" (certainly a child's seven iron would be a very useful club if you were under a tree and could not take a full swing with any of your other fourteen). But the point is this: the laws don't care why you might have stuck that club in your bag; they say only that you may not do so, and if you do, you will be disqualified. Just as the laws of golf say that you may not post an incorrect score - the implication being that you might otherwise claim that you had taken fewer shots than you actually had. When di Vicenzo fell foul of this rule in the Open, he posted a 74 when he had actually shot 73, but he was disqualified just the same. He shrugged his shoulders, the rest of the golfing world said "bad luck, but them's the rules". Can you imagine that happening in bridge? While I admire Jesper's approach (as I have said before, he is a sportsman and a gentleman, as well as a very deep thinker about the Laws), I just don't think that it will wash. I'll write some more later - have to go and play bridge now. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 04:22:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:22:12 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00974 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:22:06 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id OYJTa10153; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:24:17 EDT To: Dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Tricky problem 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 Dave, >>would you be disqualified for Fielding?<< Only if you claimed to be psychic!! Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 04:24:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:24:01 +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 EAA00989 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:23:55 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-84.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.84]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA6131889 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361BB37B.29BCE20A@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:31:23 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Change of call References: <000e01bdf215$68fd2ee0$913a79c3@geoff-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is clear that south's desire is a change of mind and it also does not meet the criteria- without pause for thought. This of course was the result of south's failure to follow correct procedure. Since a legal call was made subsequent to the attempt to change the call, and the original call was legal, no change of call is permitted. However, partner's knowledge that it was desired to change the call is UI and he must follow the restrictions in L16. I would certainly sympathize with those in the predicament should partner have a normal hand to overcall, but also have LA to it, since L16 and L12 deal quite harshly in such matters should partner make a call that works out. If south had a good knowledge of L23 they would have known that the only way to recover would be to hold their tongue, not give off any UI, and hope that they will get a chance later. Geoff Francis wrote: > > Consider the following scenario: > > East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South > discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is > still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q > of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! > > (West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 > tricks) > > What should the TD decide ? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 04:25:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:25:54 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01003 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:25:48 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA28308; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:28:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028288; Wed Oct 7 13:28:24 1998 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF1FE.4FBCC380@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:25:19 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF1FE.4FBCC380@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Geoff Francis'" Subject: RE: Dummy ask declarer about revoke Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:59:51 -0400 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, the prohibition on dummy calling attention to an irregularity excepts specifically the rights conferred by Law 42, including the Law 42B1 Revoke Inquiry, so 43A1B does not apply. Secondly declarer Must correct his revoke under 62A if dummy wakes him up before it is established. Under 62B2 the card may be replaced without penalty. Revoke is not established; no penalty tricks. FWIW, I thought ACBL not only area that allows defenders to ask. Isn't it also permitted in AUS/NZ? (This is a zonal authorisation option under Law 61B) Craig ---------- From: Geoff Francis[SMTP:geoff.francis@wxs.nl] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 10:07 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy ask declarer about revoke Recently I was asked the following question: "Is a revoke by declarer established if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked? i.e. does law 63B apply (is dummy's action illegal?) and are the penalty tricks described in law 64A applicable?" I decided it was not established since dummy is, according to law 42B1, allowed to ask. My colleague on the other hand thought that although dummy may pose the question (i.e. there is no penalty for the question (42B1)), the revoke is still established in exactly the same was as it is if one defender asks the other (in non-ACBL countries) since dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (43A1b). This means that the actual penalty could be reduced from two tricks (which it is likely to be if dummy does not ask) to one trick by substituting a legal card which does not win the trick. Does anybody know what the actual decision should be? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 05:22:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:22:29 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01122 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:22:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA04178 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810071925.MAA04178@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dummy ask declarer about revoke Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:05:14 -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 Anne Jones wrote: > > > Geoff Francis wrote: > > >Recently I was asked the following question: > > > >"Is a revoke by declarer established if dummy asks declarer if he has > >revoked? i.e. does law 63B apply (is dummy's action illegal?) and are > >the penalty tricks described in law 64A applicable?" > > > >I decided it was not established since dummy is, according to law 42B1, > >allowed to ask. > > > >My colleague on the other hand thought that although dummy may pose the > >question (i.e. there is no penalty for the question (42B1)), the revoke > >is still established in exactly the same was as it is if one defender asks > >the other (in non-ACBL countries) since dummy may not draw attention to any > >irregularity (43A1b). This means that the actual penalty could be > >reduced from two tricks (which it is likely to be if dummy does not ask) > >to one trick by substituting a legal card which does not win the trick. > > > >Does anybody know what the actual decision should be? > > > Dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity Law43A1b, but the first > sentence of this Law is "Except as specified in Law 42". No buts about it, dummy is never authorized to call attention to an irregularity before play is concluded (L42B3, L43A1(b)). > Law 42 gives > dummy the right to ask. In asking after the card has been played dummy > is carrying out his duty of preventing declarer from allowing the revoke > to be established. The irregularity that he is preventing is the > establishment of the revoke. Right on. Asking declarer whether he has a card of the suit led when he fails to follow suit is not calling attention to an irregularity, since there is as yet no evidence that one has occurred. If declarer has revoked, that irregularity has already been committed and cannot be prevented. As Anne says, dummy's inquiry is merely an attempt to prevent the potential irregularity of failing to correct a revoke, and L42B2 says that's okay. My previously expressed opinion was that dummy could ask about a possible revoke when seeing declarer about to play a card of a different suit than the one led, but not after the irregularity is committed (card hits the table face up, which means it is played). That was wrong. Suppose declarer revokes as second to play, LHO plays, and dummy's card is played, declarer winning the trick. The trick is quitted by everyone. Then, when dummy sees declarer pulling out a card of the suit he failed in, can he ask declarer whether he had a card of that suit (knowing the answer)? No, because that would be calling attention to a known irregularity (the revoke). While dummy can try to prevent an irregularity by declarer, he cannot do so by calling attention to one already committed. If there is no way that dummy could have certain knowledge of the revoke, he may inquire about that possibility anytime before declarer plays to the next trick. After that, he can still ask (which would be pretty stupid), but it's too late for a revoke to be corrected. If he did revoke, but has not played a card to the next trick, declarer can substitute a correct card for the one played without penalty. If LHO wishes, he can change his card too. When that happens, declarer can change the card played from dummy (L62C2). Do I have it right? Something looks wrong, letting dummy inquire not only after declarer's card is played, but after everyone has turned their cards over. It seems more reasonable that dummy should not be able to inquire after some earlier time, perhaps after declarer turns his card over, but there's nothing like that in the Laws. Does anyone have any further comments? While on the subject of revokes, if declarer in my example case, having violated correct procedure by revoking, corrects the revoke before it is established, can he be socked with a PP per L90A? :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 06:04:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:04:07 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01209 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:04:01 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA08176; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810072006.NAA08176@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:03:27 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > Then we can have Butler co-exist with Cross-IMPs, both > with a different notion of what is "fair". > As with across-the-field and section-by-section scoring, each of which have supporters that consider their preference to be "fair." The section-by-section supporters generally have their way. Every senior event that I have observed lately, at every tournament level, is scored section-by-section. Probably the Silver Ribbon pairs is an exception, I don't know. None of the pair events at the week-long Tucson Regional I recently attended were scored across-the-field. We have Sectional Tournaments at Clubs (STACs) here in the U. S., in which a simultaneous game is held in multiple clubs within an ACBL district, with duplicated deals. The smaller-field game results should be Neuberged vs the larger-field games, since standings are determined by overall ranking of percentage scores. A recent letter to the editor of ACBL's *The Bridge Bulletin* stated that adjusting the percentages of the smaller games would be unfair to those players. That not doing so is unfair to players in the larger games goes unnoticed. The ACBL will of course cater to the louder voice of the smaller games, without regard to what is really fair. Now, in these cases there are two ideas of what is fair, but only one is valid. I believe the same to be true of Butler vs Cross-IMP scoring. Throwing out perfectly valid scores, and treating a non-linear IMP scale as if it were linear, cannot compare in fairness with a game that keeps all scores and honors the IMP-scale. In every such case, valid ideas of what is fair should prevail over invalid ones. Fairness is not a popularity contest. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 06:06:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:06:13 +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 GAA01224 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:06:07 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA08336; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810072008.NAA08336@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:05:30 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Then we can have Butler co-exist with Cross-IMPs, both > with a different notion of what is "fair". > As with across-the-field and section-by-section scoring, each of which have supporters that consider their preference to be "fair." The section-by-section supporters generally have their way. Every senior event that I have observed lately, at every tournament level, is scored section-by-section. Probably the Silver Ribbon pairs is an exception, I don't know. None of the pair events, senior, stratified, or whatever, at the week-long Tucson Regional I recently attended were scored across-the-field. We have Sectional Tournaments at Clubs (STACs) here in the U. S., in which a simultaneous game is held in multiple clubs within an ACBL district, with duplicated deals. The smaller-field game results should be Neuberged vs the larger-field games, since standings are determined by overall ranking of percentage scores. A recent letter to the editor of ACBL's *The Bridge Bulletin* stated that adjusting the percentages of the smaller games would be unfair to those players. That not doing so is unfair to players in the larger games goes unnoticed. The ACBL will of course cater to the louder voice of the smaller games, without regard to what is really fair. Now, in these cases there are two ideas of what is fair, but only one is valid. I believe the same to be true of Butler vs Cross-IMP scoring. Throwing out perfectly valid scores, and treating a non-linear IMP scale as if it were linear, cannot compare in fairness with a game that keeps all scores and honors the IMP-scale. In every such case, valid ideas of what is fair should prevail over invalid ones. Fairness is not a popularity contest. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 06:07:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:07:01 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01239 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 06:06:56 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA08501; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810072009.NAA08501@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:07:20 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > Then we can have Butler co-exist with Cross-IMPs, both > with a different notion of what is "fair". > As with across-the-field and section-by-section scoring, each of which have supporters that consider their preference to be "fair." The section-by-section supporters generally have their way. Every senior event that I have observed lately, at every tournament level, is scored section-by-section. Probably the NABC Silver Ribbon pairs is an exception, I don't know. None of the pair events, senior, stratified, or whatever, at the week-long Tucson Regional I recently attended were scored across-the-field. We have Sectional Tournaments at Clubs (STACs) here in the U. S., in which a simultaneous game is held in multiple clubs within an ACBL district, with duplicated deals. The smaller-field game results should be Neuberged vs the larger-field games, since standings are determined by overall ranking of percentage scores. A recent letter to the editor of ACBL's *The Bridge Bulletin* stated that adjusting the percentages of the smaller games would be unfair to those players. That not doing so is unfair to players in the larger games goes unnoticed. The ACBL will of course cater to the louder voice of the smaller games, without regard to what is really fair. Now, in these cases there are two ideas of what is fair, but only one is valid. I believe the same to be true of Butler vs Cross-IMP scoring. Throwing out perfectly valid scores, and treating a non-linear IMP scale as if it were linear, cannot compare in fairness with a game that keeps all scores and honors the IMP-scale. In every such case, valid ideas of what is fair should prevail over invalid ones. Fairness is not a popularity contest. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 07:00:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:00:50 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01358 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:00:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14622 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810072103.OAA14622@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:00:11 -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 I wrote: > In every such case, valid ideas of what is fair should prevail over > invalid ones. Fairness is not a popularity contest. > I take that back. If the unfairness is made clear to the participants, and the overwhelming majority think the unfairness is okay, then go ahead with that version of the game. Swiss teams are a good example. It is clear to nearly everyone that the concept is unfair, but because the game is fun and gives weaker teams a better chance to do well, the unfairness is generally accepted. Attempts to make it fair, as I have seen from time to time, are misguided. If you want fairness in a short-match no-elimination team event, forget Swiss. Split the field into seeded sections and run a round-robin of short matches within each section. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 08:08:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:08:39 +1000 Received: from uno.minfod.com (uno.minfod.com [207.227.70.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01554 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:08:14 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zR1HN-001b6YC; Wed, 7 Oct 98 16:37 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:37:56 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Change of call In-Reply-To: <000e01bdf215$68fd2ee0$913a79c3@geoff-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_15694837==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_15694837==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:04 PM 10/7/98 , Geoff Francis wrote: >Consider the following scenario: > >East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South >discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is >still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q >of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! > >(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 >tricks) > >What should the TD decide ? > If the 13th card was in the correct slot then Law 14A applies. No change of call is permitted and South's statement is UI for North. If the 13th card was not in the correct slot then Law 13 applies. The director must determine if the board can be played normally with "no change of call". Based on South's statement I suspect it can not. So the "director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender." John S. Nichols --=====================_15694837==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 05:04 PM 10/7/98 , Geoff Francis wrote:
>Consider the following scenario:
>
>East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17).  South passes, West passes and then South
>discovers that he only has 12 cards.  An investigation reveals that it is
>still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q
>of spades).  South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD!
>
>(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10
>tricks)
>
>What should the TD decide ?
>

If the 13th card was in the correct slot then Law 14A applies.  No change of call is permitted and South's statement is UI for North.

If the 13th card was not in the correct slot then Law 13 applies.  The director must determine if the board can be played normally with "no change of call".  Based on South's statement I suspect it can not. So the "director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender." 

John S. Nichols
--=====================_15694837==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 09:04:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:04:59 +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 JAA01656 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:04:54 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 08 Oct 1998 10:09:55 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 10:09:18 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Dummy ask declarer about revoke 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 Yes, Craig is correct. Such questions are allowed in AUS/NZ along with all the other countries in our zone (but don=27t ask me for a definitive list=21=21) Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Craig Senior 7/10/98 5:59:51 >>> <> FWIW, I thought ACBL not only area that allows defenders to ask. Isn=27t = it=20 also permitted in AUS/NZ? (This is a zonal authorisation option under = Law=20 61B) Craig ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 09:10:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:10:10 +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 JAA01670 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:10:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zR2lu-0004sH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:05:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of call In-Reply-To: <000e01bdf215$68fd2ee0$913a79c3@geoff-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Geoff Francis wrote: >Consider the following scenario: > >East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South >discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is >still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q >of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! > >(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 >tricks) > >What should the TD decide ? > Too late to change the call since L25A does not apply and it is out of time for L25B [plus Lille rules forbid it anyway]. His remark is UI and North's actions should be scrutinised to make sure he does not choose amongst LAs one suggested by the UI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 09:27:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:27:23 +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 JAA01709 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:27:17 +1000 Received: from pa6s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.167] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zR32Z-0008R2-00; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:30:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Change of call Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:35:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf24b$39d26280$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 IMO this is a problem of whether or not to apply Law 25B. Before the WBFLC met at Lille, I would have said yes. Now I'm not sure. Is leaving a card in the board "stupidity" or does finding it and recounting one's points, a reasessement of judgement. Do you think Law 25B applies to this situation now? What would you say to a South who says to you "I want to change my bid under Law 25B"? Anne -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Francis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 5:35 PM Subject: Change of call >Consider the following scenario: > >East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South >discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is >still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q >of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! > >(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 >tricks) > >What should the TD decide ? > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 10:23:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:23:16 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01780 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:23:10 +1000 Received: from pees01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.239] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zR3ue-0002x8-00; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:26:37 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Change of call Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf253$0b1b7c80$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 As usual David is right. I had overlooked the fact that LHO had called, so it is out of time for Law 25B anyway. The question still applies. If LHO had not called, would you now apply this Law, mindful of the wording of the directive from Lille? How do you apply Law 25B if the SQ had been retrived from the board and the correction is made before you are called and you consider West to have intended his call to be made over South's original call. Will this mean that players are advised to change their call before calling the TD.:-) Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 12:45 AM Subject: Re: Change of call >Geoff Francis wrote: >>Consider the following scenario: >> >>East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South >>discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is >>still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q >>of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! >> >>(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 >>tricks) >> >>What should the TD decide ? >> > Too late to change the call since L25A does not apply and it is out >of time for L25B [plus Lille rules forbid it anyway]. > > His remark is UI and North's actions should be scrutinised to make >sure he does not choose amongst LAs one suggested by the UI. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 10:51:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:51:07 +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 KAA01834 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:51:01 +1000 Received: from modem12.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.140] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zR4Lc-0003bK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:54:28 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: English Bridge Union Laws and Ethics proceedings Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:36:32 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." ++++ Council of the EBU gave permission today for excerpts of its L&E committee minutes to be put on the internet. With potentially defamatory matter excised. I expect DWS or somebody will be consulting his Chairman as to what should be published. The lot we saw today were extremely dull. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. apropos of nothing, the gester machine is away at the manufacturer so no early return to that. But this one seems to be bearing up quite well. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 11:52:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:52:35 +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 LAA01968 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:52:25 +1000 Received: from [199.172.251.67] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:55:29 -0400 Date: 07 Oct 98 22:58:05 +0000 From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Change of call To: BLML , Anne Jones X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.3b3 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="====56545052545055575152===1" Message-ID: <19981008025529.AAA21827@stormy.ibl.bm@[199.172.251.67]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --====56545052545055575152===1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Reply to: Re: Change of call I will be very appreciative if someone will forward me a copy of the = decisions taken in Lille regarding Law 25B. Anne Jones wrote: >As usual David is right. I had overlooked the fact that LHO had called, >so it is out of time for Law 25B anyway. >The question still applies. If LHO had not called, would you now apply >this Law, mindful of the wording of the directive from Lille? >How do you apply Law 25B if the SQ had been retrived from the board and >the correction is made before you are called and you consider West to >have intended his call to be made over South's original call. >Will this mean that players are advised to change their call before >calling the TD.:-) > >Anne >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 12:45 AM >Subject: Re: Change of call > > >>Geoff Francis wrote: >>>Consider the following scenario: >>> >>>East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then >South >>>discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it >is >>>still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is >the Q >>>of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! >>> >>>(West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 >or 10 >>>tricks) >>> >>>What should the TD decide ? >>> >> Too late to change the call since L25A does not apply and it is out >>of time for L25B [plus Lille rules forbid it anyway]. >> >> His remark is UI and North's actions should be scrutinised to make >>sure he does not choose amongst LAs one suggested by the UI. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ >> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )= =3D >> Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > > >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, 7 Oct 1998 22:06:12 -0400 > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) = id = >KAA01785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:23:16 +1000 > Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) = >by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01780 for = >; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:23:10 +1000 > Received: from pees01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.239] = helo=3Dvnmvhhid) > by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) > for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > id 0zR3ue-0002x8-00; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:26:37 +0100 > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "BLML" > Subject: Re: Change of call > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:31:51 +0100 > Message-ID: <01bdf253$0b1b7c80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=3D"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@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > --====56545052545055575152===1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
         Reply to:   Re: Change of call
I will be very appreciative if someone = will forward me a copy of the decisions = taken in Lille regarding Law 25B.

Anne Jones wrote:
>As usual David = is right. I had overlooked the fact that = LHO had called,
>so it is out of time = for Law 25B anyway.
>The question still = applies. If LHO had not called, would you = now apply
>this Law, mindful of the = wording of the directive from Lille?
>How = do you apply Law 25B if the SQ had been = retrived from the board and
>the correction = is made before you are called and you consider = West to
>have intended his call to = be made over South's original call.
>Will = this mean that players are advised to change = their call before
>calling the TD.:-)
>
>Anne
>-----Original = Message-----
>From: David Stevenson = <bridge@= blakjak.demon.co.uk>
>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au<= FONT = FACE=3D"Geneva" SIZE=3D1 COLOR=3D"#000000"> <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>
>Date: Thursday, = October 08, 1998 12:45 AM
>Subject: = Re: Change of call
>
>
>>Geoff = Francis wrote:
>>>Consider the = following scenario:
>>>
>>>East = opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, = West passes and then
>South
>>>discovers = that he only has 12 cards. An investigation = reveals that it
>is
>>>still = in the board (face down) and it is added = to South's hand (it is
>the Q
>>>of = spades). South now says "I would like = to change my call" - TD!
>>>
>>>(West = has no points and the normal contract is = 3 or 4 spades, making 9
>or 10
>>>tricks)
>>>
>>>What = should the TD decide ?
>>>
>> = Too late to change the call since L25A = does not apply and it is out
>>of = time for L25B [plus Lille rules forbid it = anyway].
>>
>> His remark = is UI and North's actions should be scrutinised = to make
>>sure he does not choose = amongst LAs one suggested by the UI.
>>
>>--
>>David = Stevenson Bridge RTFLB = Cats Railways /\ /\
>>Liverpool, = England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 = @ @
>><bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk> ICQ 20039682 = bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D
>> Bridgepage: = http://www.= blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~
>
>
>RFC822 = header
>-----------------------------------
>
> = Return-Path: <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, 7 Oct 1998 22:06:12 -0400
> Received: = (from daemon@= localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au = (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
>KAA01785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; = Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:23:16 +1000
> Received: = from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk = [194.126.80.50])
>by octavia.anu.edu.au = (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01780 for =
><bridge-= laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 = 10:23:10 +1000
> Received: from pees01a01.client.global.net.uk = ([195.147.129.239] helo=3Dvnmvhhid)
> = by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim = 1.92 #1)
> for = bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
> id 0zR3ue-0002x8-00; = Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:26:37 +0100
> From: = "Anne Jones" <eajewm@globalnet.co.uk>
> To: "BLML" = <bridge-laws@= octavia.anu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: = Change of call
> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 = 01:31:51 +0100
> Message-ID: <01bdf253$0b1b7c80$LocalHost@= vnmvhhid>
> MIME-Version: = 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> = charset=3D"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@octavia.anu.edu.au
> Precedence: bulk
> = --====56545052545055575152===1-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 20:06:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:06:36 +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 UAA02871 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:06:29 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-122.uunet.be [194.7.9.122]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09043 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:09:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361C9487.65FD09C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 11:31:35 +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: Re: Butler Scoring References: <199810072006.NAA08176@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: > > > Then we can have Butler co-exist with Cross-IMPs, both > > with a different notion of what is "fair". > > (very valid point on section-by-section scoring snipped) Of course section-by-section scoring can not be considered more fair than accross the field. (valid point on Neuberging snipped) Of course these tournaments should be Neuberged, or better still, scored accross the field. No argument there. > > Now, in these cases there are two ideas of what is fair, but only > one is valid. I believe the same to be true of Butler vs Cross-IMP > scoring. Throwing out perfectly valid scores, and treating a > non-linear IMP scale as if it were linear, cannot compare in > fairness with a game that keeps all scores and honors the > IMP-scale. > > In every such case, valid ideas of what is fair should prevail over > invalid ones. Fairness is not a popularity contest. Point taken, but the Butler vs Cross-IMPs problem is not as easy as that. Both ideas of "fair" exist and can co-exist. Both IMP-games and MP-games are "fair" and co-exist. As DB put it : "the jury is still out". I will communicate with Steve privately and see where that leads us. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 20:34:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:34:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02935 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:34:02 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zRDRo-0001nA-00; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:37:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:05:25 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: michael amos Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <001801bdee81$8e031340$d53563c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes mega - rant snipped ah yes David - but are you pissing from inside or outside of the asylum ?? :)) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 21:42:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:42:52 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03099 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:42:34 +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 0zREW4-0002BW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:45:57 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <43LDJRFS>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Centering at Butler Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:27 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: SNIP > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > will > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > -21 > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > +1.75, > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > this. > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > system, > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > ########## I don't understand this last point. Surely, the average > is zero for cross-IMP. That is, eleven players score +21 each and one > player scores -231? ######## > > This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but > since > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > ######### Because if in tonight's game the net swing to NS over 24 > boards is +20 imps then it is much harder for the leading EW pair to > win the whole event when the two lines' ranking lists are interleaved. > ####### > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 8 22:41:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:41:28 +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 WAA03288 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:39:15 +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 0zRFON-00027H-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:42:04 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <43LDJRF9>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:07:38 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Centering at Butler Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:07:36 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Steve Willner writes: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > >> Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > will > >> be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > -21 > >> (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > >> If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > +1.75, > > > Well, eleven pairs will score +1.75, and one will score -19.25. > This > > does not do away with dropping extremes, and it is exactly what I > had > > in mind. Cross-imps takes care of this automatically, and I would > call > > it an advantage, not a drawback. > > And it happens almost as much at matchpoints. The eleven intelligent > N-S tables get 6 rather than 5.5 matchpoints, and the lucky E-W pair > gets a top and a 5-matchpoint lead in the overalls. > > ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines > independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for > their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got > the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their > own line. IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow > of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad > score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, > hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of > their own line. Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't > work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap > over allies and indirect opponents. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 00:32:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:32:42 +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 AAA05804 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:32:31 +1000 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id QAA26569; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:35:52 +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 QAA00062; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:35:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv.sc.philips.com (mtblanc [130.144.63.215]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id QAA07433; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:35:51 +0200 Message-ID: <361CCDC6.80368568@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 16:35:50 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Organization: Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (PS-SLE) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/802) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes References: <199810052203.SAA02883@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C95E1D13AC63FA93AC3565C9" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C95E1D13AC63FA93AC3565C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Willner wrote: > Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws > Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. I gathered all I could find. Except for the fact that it starts off with 'excerpt 3', I would think that my compilation was complete. I waited a few days, but saw no post, so here I post my collection. If someone has any excerpts that are not in here, please let him/her come forward. -- 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 ******************************************************************************** --------------C95E1D13AC63FA93AC3565C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="extracts-WBFLC-1998.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="extracts-WBFLC-1998.txt" From: "Grattan" Grattan Endicott Subject: More decisions of the WBFLC in Lille. Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:46:53 +0100 Grattan Endicott Subject: Final (?) extracts from minutes of WBFLC in Lille. = Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:44:49 +0100 Grattan Endicott; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 01:12:14 +1000 Received: from prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18519 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810081515.LAA02021@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Martin on Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:07:36 +0100) Subject: Re: Centering at Butler Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> Steve Willner writes: [one score of -2200, eleven +600] >> > Well, eleven pairs will score +1.75, and one will score -19.25. >> > This does not do away with dropping extremes, and it is exactly >> > what I had in mind. Cross-imps takes care of this automatically, >> > and I would call it an advantage, not a drawback. >> And it happens almost as much at matchpoints. The eleven intelligent >> N-S tables get 6 rather than 5.5 matchpoints, and the lucky E-W pair >> gets a top and a 5-matchpoint lead in the overalls. >> ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines >> independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for >> their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got >> the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their >> own line. This is true indirectly at normalized Butler IMPs or cross-IMPs. The bad N-S pair gave its E-W opponents a matchpoint top, or a bundle of IMPs, and gave the same number of IMPs to the other N-S pairs, spread among them. >> IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow >> of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad >> score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, >> hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of >> their own line. This would be true for non-normalized Butler, but with the renormalization, it is no longer true; the N-S pair who scored -2200 caused all other N-S pairs to get +1.75 IMPs and all other E-W pairs to get -1.75 IMPs. >> Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't >> work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap >> over allies and indirect opponents. ########### We may be working towards the same conclusion. In a non-normalized Butler, arrow switches would not achieve this goal because all pairs not involved in the 2200 would already have zero. With the normalization, there is +1.75 IMPs for those pairs who happened to be playing in the same direction as the -2200; with cross-IMPs, there is +21 IMPs; with matchpoints, there is half a point above average (a whole point in European scoring). In all three cases, an arrow switch would reduce the advantage to those players who happened to be in the same direction as a very weak pair which had several bad boards. -- 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 Oct 9 04:24:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 04:24:25 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06566 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 04:24:16 +1000 Received: from toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.19]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA11439 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:27:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA12193 ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:27:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: BLML Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote on 5 Oct 1998 18:03:11 -0400 (EDT) > Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws > Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. > > (Probably best just to email to me so as not to flood the list. I'll > post a copy if I get at least one. Thanks.) Yes, I collected these extracts. I don't post to this list very much, but your request was sent three days ago, with no replies yet. Since we no longer have to worry about "flooding the list", here's what I saved. >>> BEGIN collected quotes ++==++ 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. ~~ (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 ~~ +++ ++==++ 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 ]. 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." ++==++ >. 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 ++==++ 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 ~~ ++==++ 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 ~~ 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 ~~ 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. " Eleventh Extract " Law 86C The meaning is that if one of the players who has to replay the board might know the score in the match without that board, the board shall not be redealt." 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. " Thirteenth Extract "Beneficial effect of a Penalty Card. If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the Director may have recourse to Law 72B1. " 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. " ****** Ton Kooijman is particularly keen that I should link the following to the previously circulated extract concerning a player's desire to question the player who has made a call about its meaning. So that the contrast may be seen clearly I am going over the two items again:- " If a player knows that his partner's call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in his action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement. " AND " 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 a 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. " ======================================= 2.Misleading correction:- " A declarer or dummy who corrects his partner's explanation at the end of the auction must explain his partnership agreement. If his hand does not conform to the corrected explanation he must be especially careful to ensure that he is right in his understanding of his partnership agreements. Whilst no obligation exists he is free to be helpful to opponents with complete gratuitous information as to fact concerning his action (but not where such action is purposeful - e.g. psychic). 3. The following example was quoted: 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. " 4. " The Committee noted an aspect of the WBF regulations applying when screens are in use. This states that it is acceptable for a player to delay the return of the tray for the purpose of restoring the tempo of the transfer to 'normal'. It was held this means the normal tempo of play generally and not the tempo of play at that particular table nor the (slow) tempo of a prior movement of the tray on the hand in question. (Players who deliberately retard the return of the board beyond the acceptable norm may be in breach of Law 73D2 and 73F2 may apply). " <<< END collected quotes -- Barry Wolk Dept of Matematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 06:17:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:17:41 +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 GAA06772 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:17:34 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-171.uunet.be [194.7.14.171]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19785 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:21:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D1F90.2B2DC036@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:24:48 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > SNIP > > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > > will > > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > > -21 > > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > > +1.75, > > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > > this. > > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > > system, > > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > > > ########## I don't understand this last point. Surely, the average > > is zero for cross-IMP. That is, eleven players score +21 each and one > > player scores -231? ######## > > > > This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. > > > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but > > since > > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > > > ######### Because if in tonight's game the net swing to NS over 24 > > boards is +20 imps then it is much harder for the leading EW pair to > > win the whole event when the two lines' ranking lists are interleaved. > > ####### > > > > There is something wrong with that argument. On each and every deal, a pair has a chance to score points; If at the end of the deal, the NS line happens to score more than the EW line, then this was NOT because of some flaw in the deal itself, but because of the specialties of the scoring. The EW pairs on that deal were not a priori damaged because they were EW ! Put it another way. If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score 0, except the ones that got the -2200, then the EW are not disavantaged with regards to the NS are they ? Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN one could argue that the EW were hard done by. The total score for NS is NOT an element under consideration. As long as the expected score for NS and EW is 0, there is no problem. Both Butler AND Bastille provide both pairs at the table with an a-priori expected result of 0. That's all that matters ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 06:17:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:17:43 +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 GAA06773 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:17:36 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-171.uunet.be [194.7.14.171]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19792 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:21:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D2265.452A17A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:36:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines > > independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for > > their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got > > the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their > > own line. IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow > > of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad > > score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, > > hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of > > their own line. Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't > > work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap > > over allies and indirect opponents. ########### Now here is an argument that seems to makes sense. But it is flawed nevertheless. In other replies, I have concentrated on the lone -2200 to prove that centering is not necessary, and perhaps even not wanted (not in the spirit of the Butler system, which after all aims to eliminate that score from others' reckoning). Now David turns this around and uses the lone -2200 to prove one of his points. But that argument fails when applied to all the middle scores, of which there are, after all, more. When a slam is bid one additional time, this not only results in a big swing at that particular table, but also in the changing of the datum score, and small swings (in opposite direction) at all the other tables. Thus, normal allies and opponents are still the same. I do understand the points that David and Steve are trying to make. Both at Matchpoints (when done correctly) and Cross-IMPs (idem) the points are distributed "completely". Thus you can mathematically and conlucively prove that some movement is better than some other. Now at Butler this proof may still exist "mathematically", but not as "conclusively" as at the other methods, as it requires "expected values" rather than "average values". What I am stating is that just because the proof is not as conclusive, the argument need not be wrong. Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven easily. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 06:33:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:33:50 +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 GAA06855 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:33:45 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02307 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA21767; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:39:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:39:16 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810082039.NAA21767@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Centering at Butler Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: |If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score |0, except the ones that got the -2200, then the EW are not disavantaged |with regards to the NS are they ? |Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN |one could argue that the EW were hard done by. Solution: center all the scores but the ones thrown out by the Butlering. I'm not sure that centering really does make sense, but centering and Butlering work at cross-purposes; so, if one is to center, it seems that the non- rejected scores should be the ones centered. --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 Fri Oct 9 07:37:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:37:16 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07018 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:37:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA13008 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA03003 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:40:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810082140.RAA03003@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Centering at Butler X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven > easily. Butler is certainly fair and unbiased in the sense that _a priori_ no direction or table position has a better chance to win than any other. What some of us are arguing is that, depending on the vagaries of direction, a random value is added to the scores. This random value is equally likely to favor EW or NS, so it is fair, but many of us think it is undesirable. People who prefer greater randomness will disagree. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 07:58:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:58:52 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07083 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:58:35 +1000 Received: from p4ds01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.78] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.03 #2) id 0zRO8F-0005yD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:02:00 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: ss Finland - regulations Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:07:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf308$0275bb80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am answering this via BLML as I hope Herman will add his opinion. When I received the regulations for Fifth Friday Competitions I noticed particularly ART 2 which I have pasted below. Art 2 - Responsibles - there will be one central responsible and an unlimited number of club responsibles. These responsibles are allowed to play in the tournament, provided they find ways of duplicating without themselves "seeing" the boards. Every responsible must have a personalized e-mail account. This is particularly pertinent to the Welsh heat, as we do have a Duplimate machine which allows for a supervised blind deal of the hands. The file is downloaded in a closed state, and as far as I know this file cannot be accessed prior to opening it, and once opened it cannot be closed. The file is committed to diskette, and after dealing the boards, the diskette is sealed in the box with the boards, and cannot be opened until the event. The file is not saved to hard drive. It is my opinion that this method is very secure. It would be a shame we, and others, who have gone to great trouble to arrange such security, were disallowed from playing in the event.I hope that the regulations for SS Finland are the same. Anne. -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Rickard To: Herman De Wael Cc: Alexander Sukhorukov ; Anne Jones ; Anton Witzen ; Arseny Shur ; Dany Haimovici ; Dmitry Komin ; Evgeny Malyshev ; Gordon Bower ; Herman De Wael ; Igor Temirov ; Jan Peter Pals ; Jan Volhejn ; Nancy Dressing ; Nick ; Pavel Pikný ; Richard F Beye ; Richard Lighton ; Sergei Litvak ; Sergey Ostrikov ; Tony Musgrove Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:54 PM Subject: Re: ss Finland - regulations >I just noticed that the regulations don't seem to allow the possibility >of the "club responsible" being different from the "responsible deals". >I presume the intention is that "club responsible" should be a member of >BLML (second sentence of Art 2) and that the "responsible deals" should >not play (first sentence of Art 2)? > >Hope this doesn't herald the beginning of SSFLML (SS Finland Laws >Mailing List). > > Jeremy. > >--------------------------------- >Jeremy Rickard >J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk >Tel:- 0117 9287989 >Fax:- 0117 9287999 >--------------------------------- > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 08:02:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:37 +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 IAA07104 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:30 +1000 Received: from p4ds01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.78] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.03 #2) id 0zROC5-0006EH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:05:57 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf308$a51a63e0$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 hope this helps:- ++==++ 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. ~~ > ++==++ (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 ~~ ++==++ Anne -----Original Message----- From: Con Holzscherer To: Steve Willner ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 4:35 PM Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes >Steve Willner wrote: > >> Did anyone compile a complete list of Grattan's excerpts from the Laws >> Commission minutes at Lille? If so, I'd appreciate a copy. > > I gathered all I could find. Except for the fact that it starts off >with 'excerpt 3', I would think that my compilation was complete. > > I waited a few days, but saw no post, so here I post my collection. >If someone has any excerpts that are not in here, please let him/her >come forward. > >-- >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 Fri Oct 9 08:10:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:10:10 +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 IAA07121 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:10:01 +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 LAA04423 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:13:19 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981009111418.00915210@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:14:18 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: A modest proposal (was "Centering at Butler") In-Reply-To: <199810082140.RAA03003@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Slightly off-topic, which I use as an excuse not to quote anybody else, and furthermore to change the subject line :) If we're talking about running a "fair" IMP pairs, why not IMPS vs par? We have the technology ... M --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 9 09:48:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:48:05 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07318 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:47:56 +1000 Received: from modem38.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.166] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zRPq5-0000Bn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:51:21 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:46:21 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: clear rules > Date: 06 October 1998 17:04 The jury is still out on this one > ++ not really, the case is too flimsy to get into court ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 09:48:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:48:06 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07319 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:47:56 +1000 Received: from modem38.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.166] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zRPq7-0000Bn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:51:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:49:24 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: clear rules > Date: 06 October 1998 17:04 > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I hadn't meant to write more on this thread, but ......... > David S wrote > I think some of my strongest disagreements with Grattan have been and > are over this point. +++++ Oh, not with me in particular - with Kaplan, the Committee.... I do but report ..... ++++ > > I do wonder when the Laws are clear .......... ++++ All of the items discussed in Lille had been the subject of debate. It is the Committee's function to resolve debatable questions. The advent of instantaneous world wide discussion now calls for world wide solutions and the WBF is the right body to provide them; our problem is that committee members world-wide have the right to be consulted and, fairly enough, wish to have internal committee discussion when there is a new decision to be made. ++++ > The question of whether you can ask about specific bids can best be > summed up by the person who heard that the WBFLC had said you could not > by asking "Do any of the people on the WBFLC play bridge at all?" > [similar source to previous quote]. > ++++ That person did not look very carefully at what was said, and has failed to understand that the Committee would feel obliged to remain with the correct meaning of the law. So the Committee acknowledged the true meaning of the words and then mitigated the effects for the sake of practicality. That said, it is certainly my view - and has been for a long time - that we ought to screw down the meaning of the law far more tightly. My view in drafting is that we should write for the TD, not for the player, and that we should be telling the TD in much plainer and expanded terms how the law is to apply. Kaplan indulged occasionally in niceties of construction that remain obscure to many who seek to know his meaning, and of course in the latter years no-one could wish to put pressure on him and he was often tired, so things were not thrashed out that might have been and I think there is now a task to do to pick up the dropped stitches. Meanwhile the committee is deliberately set up to do what it does, its remit is clear, is not changing, and so we should get on with it. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 10:13:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:13:41 +1000 Received: from fan.net.au (fan.net.au [203.20.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07414 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:13:37 +1000 Received: from jonesgra.FAN (dialup-nas2-58.gc.fan.net.au [203.23.134.120]) by fan.net.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA26613 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:17:07 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981009001527.006652b4@fan.net.au> X-Sender: jonesgra@fan.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 10:15:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grahame Jones Subject: Download failure. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Marcus...Have been a subscriber & reader for ages now. Postings arrived regularly untilSept.24.Then no more. I have not changer my ISP or any comp.setup. All other E-Ms still arrive incl.lengthy files from John Hanson @ PH. The only co-incidence is that my midnite stock data download for that date also failed but the next day all was OK again. Could any glitch in my ISP system have triggered a disconnect on my record with you?Will you please reinstate me,plus if your sys.allows send me messages I have missed since Sept.24 ? Thanks ...Grahame Jones...Pres.Surfers Padadise Bridge Club....Gold Coast...Fax 55971172 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 10:32:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:32:54 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07475 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:32:47 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h50.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id EAA22371; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 04:36:13 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <361DF54D.7BC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 04:36:45 -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: clear rules References: 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:) Steve started one more quite interesting thread. And once more I can't resist David Burn's opinion: deep and nice arguments. I agreed with David's classification of rules onto two types. Both types are necessary - and it is WBFLC who has rights for interpretation these rules. And bridge is rather impossible without numerous rules from type 2. Moreover - there are mixture of these types too - and revoke law is not the only one. But I am rather confused by Steve's, David's and other's attempts to compare contract bridge with different kinds of sport. For my opinion such a comparison should be specially proved:) So - the rules should be clarify, fair, clear etc. Well - but the rules of what? I dare to repeat my position that contract bridge is not kind of sport, especially - because of its current Laws. The main feature of sport is equal start and equal conditions. And only team contest may be estimated as sport - especially when every match on the same round is played with the same set of boards. Another pair of shoes are pair and individual contests: they hardly may be named a sport. Because our current Laws are written for robber bridge with numerous corrections, remarks, notes. And differences are so small that both Codes may be re-written for unification purpose (as it was suggested in several posts). By the way for my opinion robber Laws are more fair, especially - revoke Law:) The problem of pairs/individuals is principle of the equal start and conditions. Only pairs/players situated at the same positions meet this principle. And from the point of sport's view only such contestants are opponents. It provides me (maybe - not only me) to understanding that current opposite players at the same table are the instrument for receiving result that will be compare with results of all the opponents (that means - another players at the same position at another tables). And the main conclusion that one may make is: when one resolves bridge conflicts he should take into account "field" equity... For my opinion there are three places in the current Laws on which such an idea may be based: - the Definitions where in the definition of opponent (for the first time) were omitted the words "at the same table" - L12 under which the TD may award non-balanced adjusting score, including possibility to make this equity different for two sides - L83 where (for the first time) the TD had possibility to refer the matter to an appropriate committee; it may be treated (and I did it so) that by-passing Kaplan's position it is the TD who should look for rights of players from another tables, rights for fair result when they cannot put the appeal; for my opinion there were several boards in Lille that were needed such TD's approval (last session, boards 9-18, 29-30...) or even testing them in AC on TD's initiative I guess that the future Laws will include more similar rules because of bridge is trying to become Olympic sport where equal start and conditions are obligate. I understand that this position is rather strange - but be so kind as not to explain me that there are 4 players at bridge table, that only they (if necessary - with the TD/AC help) decide the result at the table etc. I'd like to underline once more that our bodys will have to pass this (or similar) way - as we are going to become Olympic sport. And now - several notes: Bill Segraves wrote: "However, there is an element of bridge for which I have thus far been unable to find a parallel in other major competitive games and sports, and that is the UI issue" And what about MI?:) I guess that there are more differences... Grattan wrote: "But simplicity is desirable, only second to clarity." Herman De Wael wrote: "If it is the opinion of posters that the rules should be simpler if less fair, then that is a opinion I don't share." I agree with these remarks. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 17:52:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA08214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:52:55 +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 RAA08209 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:52:47 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F0J00NNBVDQ4U@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:56:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA16445; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:54:03 +0200 Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:54:02 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Change of call In-reply-to: <000e01bdf215$68fd2ee0$913a79c3@geoff-laptop>; from "Geoff Francis" at Oct 07, 98 6:04 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F0J00NNCVDQ4U@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Geoff, Rule 14 A1 says card belongs to South-hand. Then because of rule 25B (West LHO already made a call) so South may not change his Pass. Because of the remark of South West may not use the UI that South has values to bid after 1NT. And at last warning for South to count his hand before looking as his hand and bidding. Evert. ----------------------------------------- > Consider the following scenario: > > East opens as dealer 1NT (15-17). South passes, West passes and then South > discovers that he only has 12 cards. An investigation reveals that it is > still in the board (face down) and it is added to South's hand (it is the Q > of spades). South now says "I would like to change my call" - TD! > > (West has no points and the normal contract is 3 or 4 spades, making 9 or 10 > tricks) > > What should the TD decide ? > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Oct 9 19:24:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:24:56 +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 TAA08435 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:24:45 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F0J002O5ZMF52@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:27:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA17667; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:25:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:25:41 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: 4S permitted ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F0J002O6ZMF52@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Strong competetion, matches of four. W/NZ Bidding : W N E S West's hand : 1S 2H !*? 4H S KQJ863 p p ....! p H -- 4S p p 5H D 643 p p ! p C K865 p p * = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative ....!= clear hesitation and doubled. Result : 5H! -1 West explained me that she bid 1S because she treated this as an opening, she passed on 4H to show that she did has more minimum. EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear hesitation of E. Do you agree ? My decision was : West had two calls in which she "described" her holding so if partner doubled 4H for penalty then it his choice. He can count at no more then 1 trick in the hand of partner W. IMO a pass is a good alter- native and I corrected the score to 4H! C. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Oct 9 19:25:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:25:46 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA08452 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:25:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-165.uunet.be [194.7.14.165]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06163 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:29:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D1F90.2B2DC036@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:24:48 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > SNIP > > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > > will > > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > > -21 > > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > > +1.75, > > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > > this. > > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > > system, > > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > > > ########## I don't understand this last point. Surely, the average > > is zero for cross-IMP. That is, eleven players score +21 each and one > > player scores -231? ######## > > > > This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. > > > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but > > since > > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > > > ######### Because if in tonight's game the net swing to NS over 24 > > boards is +20 imps then it is much harder for the leading EW pair to > > win the whole event when the two lines' ranking lists are interleaved. > > ####### > > > > There is something wrong with that argument. On each and every deal, a pair has a chance to score points; If at the end of the deal, the NS line happens to score more than the EW line, then this was NOT because of some flaw in the deal itself, but because of the specialties of the scoring. The EW pairs on that deal were not a priori damaged because they were EW ! Put it another way. If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score 0, except the ones that got the -2200, then X-Mozilla-Status: 0009taged with regards to the NS are they ? Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN one could argue that the EW were hard done by. The total score for NS is NOT an element under consideration. As long as the expected score for NS and EW is 0, there is no problem. Both Butler AND Bastille provide both pairs at the table with an a-priori expected result of 0. That's all that matters ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 19:25:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:25:49 +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 TAA08456 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:25:42 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-165.uunet.be [194.7.14.165]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06167 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D2265.452A17A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:36:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines > > independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for > > their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got > > the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their > > own line. IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow > > of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad > > score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, > > hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of > > their own line. Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't > > work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap > > over allies and indirect opponents. ########### Now here is an argument that seems to makes sense. But it is flawed nevertheless. In other replies, I have concentrated on the lone -2200 to prove that centering is not necessary, and perhaps even not wanted (not in the spirit of the Butler system, which after all aims to eliminate that score from others' reckoning). Now David turns this around and uses the lone -2200 to prove one of his points. But that argument fails when applied to all the middle scores, of which there are, after all, more. When a slam is bid one additional time, this not only results in a big swing at that particular table, but also in the changing of the datum score, and small swings (in opposite direction) at all the other tables. Thus, normal allies and opponents are still the same. I do understand the points that David and Steve are trying to make. Both at Matchpoints (when done correctly) and Cross-IMPs (idem) the points are distributed "completely". Thus you can mathematically and conlucively prove that some movement is better than some other. Now at Butler this proof may still exist "mathematically", but not as "conclusively" as at the other methods, as it requires "expected values" rather than "average values". What I am stating is that just because the proof is not as conclusive, the argument need not be wrong. Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven easily. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:03:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:03:32 +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 VAA08917 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:03:25 +1000 Received: from village.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 NAA16845 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:06:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D2265.452A17A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:36:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines > > independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for > > their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got > > the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their > > own line. IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow > > of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad > > score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, > > hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of > > their own line. Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't > > work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap > > over allies and indirect opponents. ########### Now here is an argument that seems to makes sense. But it is flawed nevertheless. In other replies, I have concentrated on the lone -2200 to prove that centering is not necessary, and perhaps even not wanted (not in the spirit of the Butler system, which after all aims to eliminate that score from others' reckoning). Now David turns this around and uses the lone -2200 to prove one of his points. But that argument fails when applied to all the middle scores, of which there are, after all, more. When a slam is bid one additional time, this not only results in a big swing at that particular table, but also in the changing of the datum score, and small swings (in opposite direction) at all the other tables. Thus, normal allies and opponents are still the same. I do understand the points that David and Steve are trying to make. Both at Matchpoints (when done correctly) and Cross-IMPs (idem) the points are distributed "completely". Thus you can mathematically and conlucively prove that some movement is better than some other. Now at Butler this proof may still exist "mathematically", but not as "conclusively" as at the other methods, as it requires "expected values" rather than "average values". What I am stating is that just because the proof is not as conclusive, the argument need not be wrong. Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven easily. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:03:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:03:18 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08910 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:03:12 +1000 Received: from village.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 NAA16811 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D1F90.2B2DC036@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:24:48 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > SNIP > > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > > will > > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > > -21 > > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > > +1.75, > > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > > this. > > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > > system, > > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > > > ########## I don't understand this last point. Surely, the average > > is zero for cross-IMP. That is, eleven players score +21 each and one > > player scores -231? ######## > > > > This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. > > > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but > > since > > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > > > ######### Because if in tonight's game the net swing to NS over 24 > > boards is +20 imps then it is much harder for the leading EW pair to > > win the whole event when the two lines' ranking lists are interleaved. > > ####### > > > > There is something wrong with that argument. On each and every deal, a pair has a chance to score points; If at the end of the deal, the NS line happens to score more than the EW line, then this was NOT because of some flaw in the deal itself, but because of the specialties of the scoring. The EW pairs on that deal were not a priori damaged because they were EW ! Put it another way. If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score 0, except the ones that got the -2200, then X-MozillaX-Mozilla-Status: 0009th regards to the NS are they ? Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN one could argue that the EW were hard done by. The total score for NS is NOT an element under consideration. As long as the expected score for NS and EW is 0, there is no problem. Both Butler AND Bastille provide both pairs at the table with an a-priori expected result of 0. That's all that matters ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:04:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:04:53 +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 VAA08927 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:04:47 +1000 Received: from village.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 NAA17061 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:08:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361DF339.4E4A70B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 12:27:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810082039.NAA21767@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > |If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score > |0, except the ones that got the -2200, then the EW are not disavantaged > |with regards to the NS are they ? > |Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN > |one could argue that the EW were hard done by. > > Solution: center all the scores but the ones > thrown out by the Butlering. > > I'm not sure that centering really does make sense, > but centering and Butlering work at cross-purposes; > so, if one is to center, it seems that the non- > rejected scores should be the ones centered. > --Jeff Good idea, and I did think of that. But I think centering is not needed, and introduces complications. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:04:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:04:58 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08928 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:04:49 +1000 Received: from village.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 NAA17068 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:08:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361DF3B9.1487D88C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 12:30:01 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810082140.RAA03003@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 > > Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven > > easily. > > Butler is certainly fair and unbiased in the sense that _a priori_ no > direction or table position has a better chance to win than any other. > > What some of us are arguing is that, depending on the vagaries of > direction, a random value is added to the scores. This random value is > equally likely to favor EW or NS, so it is fair, but many of us think > it is undesirable. People who prefer greater randomness will disagree. So we have cleared this up, we no longer disagree. Conclusions : - Butler and Cross-IMPs are both fair; - They produce different results and are used according to the wish of the organizers and players; - Butler may be slightly more random than Cross-IMPs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:12:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:23 +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 VAA08995 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:17 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-34.uunet.be [194.7.13.34]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17857 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:15:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D1F90.2B2DC036@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:24:48 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > SNIP > > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > > will > > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > > -21 > > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. > > If Steve's wish for centering is granted, all NS pairs will score > > +1.75, > > thereby completely doing away with the dropping of extremes in the > > Butler system. I doubt if this was in Steve's mind when he suggested > > this. > > Incidentally, this is also one of the drawbacks to the cross-IMP > > system, > > as there indeed, all NS will receive +1.75. > > > > ########## I don't understand this last point. Surely, the average > > is zero for cross-IMP. That is, eleven players score +21 each and one > > player scores -231? ######## > > > > This is why I would not want to promote any centering at Butler. > > > > The result is of course that one "line" will outscore another, but > > since > > this is unbiased to one or the other, why should we care ? > > > > ######### Because if in tonight's game the net swing to NS over 24 > > boards is +20 imps then it is much harder for the leading EW pair to > > win the whole event when the two lines' ranking lists are interleaved. > > ####### > > > > There is something wrong with that argument. On each and every deal, a pair has a chance to score points; If at the end of the deal, the NS line happens to score more than the EW line, then this was NOT because of some flaw in the deal itself, but because of the specialties of the scoring. The EW pairs on that deal were not a priori damaged because they were EW ! Put it another way. If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score 0, except the ones that got the -2200, then X-MozillaX-MozX-Mozilla-Status: 0009gards to the NS are they ? Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN one could argue that the EW were hard done by. The total score for NS is NOT an element under consideration. As long as the expected score for NS and EW is 0, there is no problem. Both Butler AND Bastille provide both pairs at the table with an a-priori expected result of 0. That's all that matters ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:12:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:29 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09002 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:23 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-34.uunet.be [194.7.13.34]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17864 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:15:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361D2265.452A17A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:36:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > ########## But the matchpoints available to the NS and EW lines > > independently are both the same and each pair are merely fighting for > > their entitlement within their lines' allocation, ie. the pair who got > > the bottom have donated those matchpoints to the other pairs in their > > own line. IMP scoring in the above example results in a positive flow > > of IMPs from the EW line to the NS line, ie. the EW pair with the bad > > score have not given the 21 IMPs to other EW pairs but to an NS pair, > > hence, they are not truely in indirect competition with the rest of > > their own line. Hence, my earlier comments that arrow-switches don't > > work for Butler because the main purpose of an arrow-switch is to swap > > over allies and indirect opponents. ########### Now here is an argument that seems to makes sense. But it is flawed nevertheless. In other replies, I have concentrated on the lone -2200 to prove that centering is not necessary, and perhaps even not wanted (not in the spirit of the Butler system, which after all aims to eliminate that score from others' reckoning). Now David turns this around and uses the lone -2200 to prove one of his points. But that argument fails when applied to all the middle scores, of which there are, after all, more. When a slam is bid one additional time, this not only results in a big swing at that particular table, but also in the changing of the datum score, and small swings (in opposite direction) at all the other tables. Thus, normal allies and opponents are still the same. I do understand the points that David and Steve are trying to make. Both at Matchpoints (when done correctly) and Cross-IMPs (idem) the points are distributed "completely". Thus you can mathematically and conlucively prove that some movement is better than some other. Now at Butler this proof may still exist "mathematically", but not as "conclusively" as at the other methods, as it requires "expected values" rather than "average values". What I am stating is that just because the proof is not as conclusive, the argument need not be wrong. Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven easily. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:12:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:53 +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 VAA09011 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:46 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-34.uunet.be [194.7.13.34]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17933 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:16:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361DF3B9.1487D88C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 12:30:01 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810082140.RAA03003@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 > > Butler too is a fair an unbiased method, even if this cannot be proven > > easily. > > Butler is certainly fair and unbiased in the sense that _a priori_ no > direction or table position has a better chance to win than any other. > > What some of us are arguing is that, depending on the vagaries of > direction, a random value is added to the scores. This random value is > equally likely to favor EW or NS, so it is fair, but many of us think > it is undesirable. People who prefer greater randomness will disagree. So we have cleared this up, we no longer disagree. Conclusions : - Butler and Cross-IMPs are both fair; - They produce different results and are used according to the wish of the organizers and players; - Butler may be slightly more random than Cross-IMPs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 21:12:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:53 +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 VAA09010 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:12:44 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-34.uunet.be [194.7.13.34]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17927 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:16:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361DF339.4E4A70B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 12:27:53 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810082039.NAA21767@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > |If all NS score 0, except the ones that got the +2200, and all EW score > |0, except the ones that got the -2200, then the EW are not disavantaged > |with regards to the NS are they ? > |Rather, if after centering, the EW all get -1, and the NS all +1, THEN > |one could argue that the EW were hard done by. > > Solution: center all the scores but the ones > thrown out by the Butlering. > > I'm not sure that centering really does make sense, > but centering and Butlering work at cross-purposes; > so, if one is to center, it seems that the non- > rejected scores should be the ones centered. > --Jeff Good idea, and I did think of that. But I think centering is not needed, and introduces complications. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 23:15:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:15:52 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09408 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:15:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA24213 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA03411 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:19:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810091319.JAA03411@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Centering at Butler X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > So we have cleared this up, we no longer disagree. > > Conclusions : > > - Butler and Cross-IMPs are both fair; If you will substitute "Bastille" for "Butler," then I'll agree. Butler has the serious problem that improving your point score on a board may _decrease_ your IMP score. That is not my idea of fair. Bastille solves this problem by using fractional IMPs. > - They produce different results and are used according to the wish of > the organizers and players; > - Butler may be slightly more random than Cross-IMPs. Yes. An analogy to the last statement is failing to matchpoint across sections. It is fair -- you don't know at the beginning whether you want to be in Section A or Section B -- but there is a random component added to scores in one section versus the other. _After_ the game, you may well find that your score would have been different if you had achieved exactly the same results in the other section. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 9 23:44:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:44:09 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09474 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:44:02 +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 JAA25286 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA03461 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810091347.JAA03461@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "E.Angad-Gaur" > Strong competetion, matches of four. > W/NZ > Bidding : > W N E S West's hand : > 1S 2H x!? 4H S KQJ863 > p p ....x p H -- > 4S p p 5H D 643 > p p x p C K865 > p p > > ! = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative > ....x= clear hesitation and doubled. > Result : 5H! -1 > EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear > hesitation of E. Do you agree ? [symbols changed for clarity.] Sorry, but I'm afraid you have one vote in disagreement. Actually, I disagree for two reasons. In the Netherlands (if you are on the 25% rule used in most of Europe), I don't think passing 4Hx is a LA. (It would be a close question in North America with our much more stringent rule.) And I am not sure the hesitation suggests pulling the double, but perhaps I'd change my mind if I knew the EW agreements. How many spades did 1S promise? The negative double can be a variety of things, and we need to know which ones in this partnership. What was the second double supposed to show? (I would expect it to show two-way values, not strictly penalties.) Could East have x KQJx Axxx Axxx ? (He was deciding whether to pass out 4H because partner would likely pull a double. This is only possible in a very good partnership, but you say this one is.) Actually, I think the harder problem is West's pass of 5H doubled. Is 5S or 6C a LA? And is pass suggested by one of the earlier hesitations? We would have to know a lot more about the EW methods to decide, but an adjustment to 5Sx or 6Cx isn't out of the question. This is a very hard problem for the TD, who may not have time to investigate the EW methods in detail. I have quite a lot of sympathy for ruling for the NOS because the position is so unclear, but I cannot see 4Hx= unless there is something you are not telling us about the EW agreements. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to a adjustment to some result in 5Sx or 6Cx. Of course the ACBL solves this by ruling avg+/avg-. I have no sympathy whatever for this approach. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 00:19:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:19:15 +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 AAA11798 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:19:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA26521 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA03491 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:22:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810091422.KAA03491@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > I agreed with David's classification of rules onto two types. > Both types are necessary... And bridge is rather impossible > without numerous rules from type 2. I agree with all this. > But I am rather confused by Steve's, David's and other's > attempts to compare contract bridge with different kinds of sport. > For my opinion such a comparison should be specially proved:) Yes, indeed. Bridge has its unique characteristics, and we should be very careful about analogies. On the other hand, the sorts of problems players and fans will accept in other sports offers lessons for bridge. IMHO a disagreement on bridge judgment (some think some action was a LA, others don't) is no big problem,* but applying a completely wrong law or blowing a simple technical ruling causes great unpleasantness. We ought to make the rules as clear as possible so these problems will be rare. Of course it's even better if we can minimize the number of Type 2 laws and the necessary judgment, but there's only so far we can go in that direction without making the game unfair. For example, we could say that if there is a revoke, the NOS wins 13 tricks on the deal. That ought to be sufficient for deterrence and punishment, and it is definitely simple, but I don't think too many (David B. aside) would consider it fair. The tough question (really questions, plural) is how to make the best compromises. And of course once the decision is made, writing it in clear language is no trivial task. That's why the LC members get paid their high salaries. :-) > The main feature of sport is equal start and equal conditions. > > And only team contest may be estimated as sport - especially when > every match on the same round is played with the same set of boards. > > Another pair of shoes are pair and individual contests: they hardly > may be named a sport. These seem to be very important points, but I'm afraid I don't see what Vitold is driving at. Could Vitold or someone else expand a little? ---- *the recent brouhaha after the Canadian team championship aside. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 01:54:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:54:23 +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 BAA11905 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:54:17 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-186.uunet.be [194.7.14.186]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18510 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:57:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <361E3E8C.4DF8D2C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 17:49:16 +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: Re: Centering at Butler References: <199810082039.NAA21767@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> <361DF339.4E4A70B2@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry for all those duplicate posts ! The culprit : Jeremy Rickard ! When I mailed one message with Rckard(no @ or anything) among the destinees, the mailer obviously refused to send this. So he asked to send all the rest. So I did. And then the silly thing (the newest Netscape) did not delete all those messages from the "unsent message" folder. So they got sent again ! And once more ! And stupid me - once more ! Sorry again. BTW, I shall not count all these duplications in the statistics. This was not an attempt to climb back up the posters ladder ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 04:20:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 04:20:57 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12456 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 04:20:48 +1000 Received: from modem24.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zRhD1-0006DR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:24:12 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:11:41 +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. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." ---------- From: Marvin L. French To: Steve Willner ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Their actual words were, according to Grattan: > 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 ~~ ++==++ This is a very poorly worded statement, but the gist is clear. ++++ I am not sure what the discussion is about. We have a definition which says that one of the features that makes a bid conventional is if it makes a statement about a suit other than the one named regardless of what statement it makes about the named suit. The WBFLC clarifies that by saying that an implication which from general knowledge of the game all the world would be expected to understand is not to be regarded as constituting such a statement. This is consistent with the stance of the WBFLC that matters manifestly to be understood by all as part of the general knowledge of the game are not special partnership understandings. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 05:30:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 05:30:34 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12655 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 05:30:28 +1000 Received: from default (user-37kbm2o.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.88]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA17016 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981009153308.00692880@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:33:08 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? In-Reply-To: <199810091347.JAA03461@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 10/9/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "E.Angad-Gaur" >> Strong competetion, matches of four. >> W/NZ >> Bidding : >> W N E S West's hand : >> 1S 2H x!? 4H S KQJ863 >> p p ....x p H -- >> 4S p p 5H D 643 >> p p x p C K865 >> p p >> >> ! = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative >> ....x= clear hesitation and doubled. >> Result : 5H! -1 >> EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear >> hesitation of E. Do you agree ? >[symbols changed for clarity.] > >Sorry, but I'm afraid you have one vote in disagreement. Actually, I >disagree for two reasons. In the Netherlands (if you are on the 25% >rule used in most of Europe), I don't think passing 4Hx is a LA. (It >would be a close question in North America with our much more stringent >rule.) And I am not sure the hesitation suggests pulling the double, >but perhaps I'd change my mind if I knew the EW agreements. How many >spades did 1S promise? The negative double can be a variety of things, >and we need to know which ones in this partnership. What was the >second double supposed to show? (I would expect it to show two-way >values, not strictly penalties.) Could East have x KQJx Axxx Axxx ? >(He was deciding whether to pass out 4H because partner would likely >pull a double. This is only possible in a very good partnership, but >you say this one is.) > I disagree strongly, Steve. Not only would I say 4S is a LA in any jurisdiction, I would argue that it is a fairly clear-cut choice. As for what the hesitation suggests, it clearly indicates a lack of confidence in the decision to make a penalty double of 4H, and if that doesn't suggest pulling the double, I don't know what would do so. As to the LA issue, it really doesn't matter much exactly how EW pair play their negative doubles. The double of 2H strongly suggests minors, and both the final double and West's void indicate that East holds 3-4 hearts, so East is fairly well marked with short spades, with a stiff the most likely holding. When partner, who is known to be short in your suit, makes a clear penalty double of the opponents in your void suit, it's time to respect partner's judgement. Imagine the opprobrium which will justifiably be forthcoming if you take out the double in this position and find partner with, say X AJ9X QTXX AXXX, when neither side can take more than 8 tricks. Certainly, you might have a better hand for defense. Personally, I don't really care for the 1S bid and would prefer 2S. But if you think this hand deserves a 1S opening (as West obviously did), then you should be prepared to sit for this double. After all, partner knows what kind of garbage you're apt to trot out, and has presumably figured that into the odds on the double. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 07:36:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 07:36:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13228 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 07:36:11 +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 RAA12240 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA03922 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810092139.RAA03922@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: conventions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" [I have changed the subject line, since this topic has little to do with its former thread. Grattan is discussing the Lille statement on the 1997 convention definition.] > The WBFLC clarifies that by saying > that an implication which from general knowledge of the > game all the world would be expected to understand is not > to be regarded as constituting [a statement about some suit > not named, which would make the bid conventional] This is quite reasonable, but it doesn't seem to address what I thought was the original question. The order in which suits are bid gives information about the lengths of other suits, and the order is a matter of partnership agreement, not general knowledge. No doubt the ACBL chieftains would like to believe that their own bidding agreements are universal, but it isn't so. With equal lengths (especially 4-4), some partnerships bid one suit first and others bid the other. Even with unequal lengths, not everyone always bids the longest first. If the statement means implications from general knowledge _given the bidding methods in use_, that's fine. But then don't try to tell me that a three card major opening in a canape system is conventional. Given canape methods, it's general knowledge that the suit opened might be short and another might be longer. Is this really how we are to interpret the definition and statement? If so, I like it a lot, but I predict some consternation in Memphis. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 08:05:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:05:27 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13310 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:05:21 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA15924 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810092208.PAA15924@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:05:11 -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 Grattan wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > Their actual words were, according to Grattan: > > > 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 ~~ > ++==++ > > This is a very poorly worded statement, but the gist is clear. > > ++++ I am not sure what the discussion is about. We have > a definition which says that one of the features that makes a > bid conventional is if it makes a statement about a suit other > than the one named regardless of what statement it makes > about the named suit. The WBFLC clarifies that by saying > that an implication which from general knowledge of the > game all the world would be expected to understand is not > to be regarded as constituting such a statement. This is > consistent with the stance of the WBFLC that matters > manifestly to be understood by all as part of the general > knowledge of the game are not special partnership > understandings. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > My sentence was taken out of context, but let that go. To start with, both the "poorly worded statement" and Grattan's comment ignore the notrump denomination. One reason I thought the statement was poorly worded is that its intent surely is "carried an inference as a matter of bridge knowledge that the hand *probably* held no longer suit than the one named. I open 1S with S-AKJx H-Q9xxx D-Kx C-xx, to prepare for a rebid, but I don't think 1S constitutes a convention just because it does not deny a longer suit. I suppose the words "an inference" are not equivalent to "a promise," so the statement is probably okay on that point. However, I think some believe the definition is deficient on wider grounds than any inference about the length of some unnamed suit. If "other than willingness to play" is interpreted as "additional information other than willingness," then that could include a host of inferences besides a general one about suit length. Therefore, the "poorly worded statement" should have said, "...carried only inferences that are a matter of general bridge knowledge." Such inferences might include distribution (notrump bids tend to promise a balanced hand), hand strength (failure to open with a forcing bid), and so forth. Of course my stand is that "other than willingness" means merely "unwillingness," as the French Laws interpret those words, but let that go too. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 08:53:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:53:07 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13474 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:53:01 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA22391 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810092256.PAA22391@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:52:13 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ++++ All of the items discussed in Lille had been the subject of > debate. It is the Committee's function to resolve debatable > questions. > The advent of instantaneous world wide discussion now calls for > world wide solutions and the WBF is the right body to provide > them; our problem is that committee members world-wide have > the right to be consulted and, fairly enough, wish to have > internal committee discussion when there is a new decision to > be made. ++++ > (snip) > That said, it is certainly my view - and has been for a long > time - that we ought to screw down the meaning of the law far > more tightly. My view in drafting is that we should write for > the TD, not for the player, and that we should be telling the > TD in much plainer and expanded terms how the law is to apply. > Kaplan indulged occasionally in niceties of construction that > remain obscure to many who seek to know his meaning, and of > course in the latter years no-one could wish to put pressure > on him and he was often tired, so things were not thrashed > out that might have been and I think there is now a task to > do to pick up the dropped stitches. Meanwhile the committee > is deliberately set up to do what it does, its remit is > clear, is not changing, and so we should get on with it. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > A while back in time, when I was new to BLML, my first complaint was that BLMLers seemed to be arguing needlessly about the interpretation of various laws. Where are the authors of those laws?, I asked. Why not just ask them? Why don't they speak up? Well, now several particpants in the lawmaking, Grattan and Ton, have done exactly what I had hoped, stepping forward to offer interpretations of arguable points. And finally, at last, these are not just personal opinions, but official opinions of the WBF LC. What's more, they will be promulgated to all NAs, to be adopted (I hope!) as coming from the only agency authorized by the WBF to interpret the Laws. This is great! While some of these opinions do not please me entirely, I respect them. Any appearance of disrespect on my part is quite unintentional. It's the job of the WBF LC, and they're doing it as best they can. Political considerations no doubt have an adverse effect on the quality of some of the interpretations, but that can't be helped. I think all we can ask is that the WBF LC give serious attention to suggestions, especially from those who have participated in BLML discussions. That seems to be the case, and there will no doubt be repeats of the process. I don't think harsh criticism of the WBF LC is warranted if they do that, even if a few of the interpretations don't appeal to some, or even to all. Rather, I would hope that pressure could be brought to bear on members of all LCs, not just the WBF LC, to participate, maybe only as lurkers, in BLML. I don't see how anyone can do an LC job well without communicating with that part of the bridge population who are interested in the Laws. At least one current WBF LC member has explicitly expressed an unwillingness to participate in any such internet forum. That's not a good attitude, and I would like to see Ton, as chairman of the WBF LC, try to get it corrected in one way or another. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 09:28:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:28:38 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13562 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:28:31 +1000 Received: from p4es09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.79] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zRm0s-00073p-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:31:59 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:37:24 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdf3dd$c4602840$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 FWIW I found Grattan's statement easy to understand. The definition of "Conventional" as confirmed is how I have always understood it. But Marvin, the example you gave is of a hand which opened 1S as a partnership understanding that you may be expected to have 4 good spades, 5 poor Hearts and a 13 count, is indeed conventional and in the UK would have to be alerted. In view of the fact that Steve Willner also made the comment " not everyone opens their longest suit" , I suspect that this style of bidding is common the other side of the pond. But it is IMO nevertheless conventional. Surely Standard American would advocate the opening of 1H on the hand. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 11:32 PM Subject: Re: clear rules >Grattan wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> Their actual words were, according to Grattan: >> >> > 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 ~~ > >> ++==++ >> >> This is a very poorly worded statement, but the gist is clear. >> >> ++++ I am not sure what the discussion is about. We have >> a definition which says that one of the features that makes a >> bid conventional is if it makes a statement about a suit other >> than the one named regardless of what statement it makes >> about the named suit. The WBFLC clarifies that by saying >> that an implication which from general knowledge of the >> game all the world would be expected to understand is not >> to be regarded as constituting such a statement. This is >> consistent with the stance of the WBFLC that matters >> manifestly to be understood by all as part of the general >> knowledge of the game are not special partnership >> understandings. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> > >My sentence was taken out of context, but let that go. > >To start with, both the "poorly worded statement" and Grattan's >comment ignore the notrump denomination. > >One reason I thought the statement was poorly worded is that its >intent surely is "carried an inference as a matter of bridge >knowledge that the hand *probably* held no longer suit than the one >named. I open 1S with S-AKJx H-Q9xxx D-Kx C-xx, to prepare for a >rebid, but I don't think 1S constitutes a convention just because >it does not deny a longer suit. I suppose the words "an inference" >are not equivalent to "a promise," so the statement is probably >okay on that point. > >However, I think some believe the definition is deficient on wider >grounds than any inference about the length of some unnamed suit. >If "other than willingness to play" is interpreted as "additional >information other than willingness," then that could include a host >of inferences besides a general one about suit length. Therefore, >the "poorly worded statement" should have said, "...carried only >inferences that are a matter of general bridge knowledge." Such >inferences might include distribution (notrump bids tend to promise >a balanced hand), hand strength (failure to open with a forcing >bid), and so forth. > >Of course my stand is that "other than willingness" means merely >"unwillingness," as the French Laws interpret those words, but let >that go too. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 10:25:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:25:59 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13660 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:25:53 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zRmuP-0006eX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:29:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:22:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? In-Reply-To: <0F0J002O6ZMF52@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0F0J002O6ZMF52@mailhost2.tudelft.nl>, "E.Angad-Gaur" writes >Strong competetion, matches of four. > >W/NZ >Bidding : > W N E S West's hand : > 1S 2H !*? 4H S KQJ863 > p p ....! p H -- > 4S p p 5H D 643 > p p ! p C K865 > p p > >* = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative >....!= clear hesitation and doubled. > >Result : 5H! -1 > >West explained me that she bid 1S because she treated this as an opening, >she passed on 4H to show that she did has more minimum. > >EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear >hesitation of E. Do you agree ? > >My decision was : West had two calls in which she "described" her holding >so if partner doubled 4H for penalty then it his choice. He can count at >no more then 1 trick in the hand of partner W. IMO a pass is a good alter- >native and I corrected the score to 4H! C. >-- I'd have adjusted to 4Hx making. Pass seems an LA to me. 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 Sat Oct 10 13:56:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:56:16 +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 NAA14010 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:56:09 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-14.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.14]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA7992291 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361EDC94.3F47F838@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 23:03:32 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? References: <0F0J002O6ZMF52@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems that since W can open such a hand, then E ought to have taken into account when they doubled 4H and one of the things the slow double suggests is that it may have been considered. Also, E could have known at the time of the slow double that they have given their partner a problem and this too should have been taken into account for the action they chose. I can not justify taking out the double since it could be more right after the hesitation. To consider taking out the double, the only legitimate call [opener has 4 clubs to a high honor in one of responder's suits] would be 5C which seems to be suicide [the reason that it is not proper to take it out at all]. Opener's void also suggests a trump stack for partner's double. Passing the double is clearly logical bridge action. Rule 4HX making. Roger Pewick E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > > Strong competetion, matches of four. > > W/NZ > Bidding : > W N E S West's hand : > 1S 2H !*? 4H S KQJ863 > p p ....! p H -- > 4S p p 5H D 643 > p p ! p C K865 > p p > > * = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative > ....!= clear hesitation and doubled. > > Result : 5H! -1 > > West explained me that she bid 1S because she treated this as an opening, > she passed on 4H to show that she did has more minimum. > > EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear > hesitation of E. Do you agree ? > > My decision was : West had two calls in which she "described" her holding > so if partner doubled 4H for penalty then it his choice. He can count at > no more then 1 trick in the hand of partner W. IMO a pass is a good alter- > native and I corrected the score to 4H! C. > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Sat Oct 10 14:12:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:12:59 +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 OAA14071 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:12:53 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-2.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.106]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA26357 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361EE04B.6B9BDB6D@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:19:23 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a diamond and did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two tricks as declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a trick with the card that could have been played on the revoke. Declarer's husband who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we both read and reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 16:00:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:00:08 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA14204 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:00:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA19523 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810100603.XAA19523@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:59:06 -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 Those who don't want to read any more about the definition of convention, please hit the delete key. Anne Jones wrote: > > FWIW I found Grattan's statement easy to understand. The definition of > "Conventional" as confirmed is how I have always understood it. > > But Marvin, the example you gave is of a hand which opened 1S as a > partnership understanding that you may be expected to have 4 good > spades, 5 poor Hearts and a 13 count, is indeed conventional and in the > UK would have to be alerted. > In view of the fact that Steve Willner also made the comment " not > everyone opens their longest suit" , I suspect that this style of > bidding is common the other side of the pond. But it is IMO nevertheless > conventional. > Surely Standard American would advocate the opening of 1H on the hand. > I don't play Standard American, I play bridge, and I didn't say it was a partnership understanding. When I open 1S with S-AKJx H-K10x D-Qxxxx C-x, and later bid diamonds, partner will take me to have equal length or longer spades. That's the chance I take when I open 1S. As Terence Reese wrote years ago, perhaps in *Blueprint for Bidding*, it's a lower risk than opening 1D and having to rebid 2D, or lying with a reverse, when partner responds 2C. I do this sort of thing so seldom that partner doesn't expect it, or look for it, so why should he have to Alert all my opening suit bids and responses? Of course if the bidding goes P-P-1S-P; 2NT-P-3H-P; 3S-P-4H, then he can figure my hearts are longer and pass with 3-3 in the majors. It's called natural bidding. Ah, I just remembered. Reese said to respond 1S to 1m with S-AKJx H-10xxxx D-xx C-xx, something like that, so as to have a convenient rebid when opener rebids 1NT. That's not a convention, it's just common sense. People who bid 1S with 5432, or reverse with minimum values, don't have to bid like that, but their unnatural bidding style is not my cup of tea. But back to your main point. Whether someone bids diamonds or clubs first with 4-4 spades or clubs first with 5-5, a longer suit before a shorter suit, or a shorter suit before a longer suit, may be a matter of partnership understanding, but none of those practices constitutes a convention. Alertable perhaps, when it's a practice expected by partner and not expected by the opposition, but not a convention. Let's remember that the real purpose of defining what constitutes a convention is to prevent SOs from controlling bidding practices that ought not to be controlled. The ACBL forbids bidding a three-card major before a longer minor because the BoD doesn't like the practice. They like bidding a three-card minor before a four-card major, so that's okay. Whether you bid a longer suit or shorter suit first is just a matter of taste, both systems are playable, and neither should be controlled. If the present definition says either practice is a convention, hence controllable, then it certainly should be changed. I (and the French, see their definition) don't think it says that. For everyone's amusement, here's the definition in the 1963 Laws: "Any call or play which, by agreement or understanding between partners, serves to convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the opponents in the absence of an explanation." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 10 18:41:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA14393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:41:14 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA14388 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:41:09 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07445; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810100844.BAA07445@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , "bridge laws" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:41:38 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. > Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had > revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a diamond and > did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while > they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take > another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two tricks as > declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a trick with > the card that could have been played on the revoke. Declarer's husband > who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the > trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and > therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we both read and > reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because > she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was > misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I > don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy > I assume 64 B2 is a typo, and that you mean the applicable law, L64 A2, which clearly states that declarer loses two tricks. I don't see how there could be any doubt about it. When the revoker doesn't win the revoke trick, what counts are tricks after that trick, not tricks starting from the time the card is played that should have been played to the revoke trick. The first trick won by declarer after the revoke is transferred to the opposing side. After that, the first trick declarer wins with a spade (in this case, the spade 3) is also transferred to the other side. That's two tricks, you were right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 00:02:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:02:54 +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 AAA14941 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:02:48 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-53-9.s9.tnt4.brd.erols.com [207.172.53.9]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA28048 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810101406.KAA28048@smtp1.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge laws" Subject: RE: Revoke Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:06:17 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <361EE04B.6B9BDB6D@pinehurst.net> 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 Nancy T > Dressing > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 1998 12:19 AM > To: bridge laws > Subject: Revoke > > > At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. > Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had > revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a > diamond and > did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while > they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take > another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two > tricks as > declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a > trick with > the card that could have been played on the revoke. > Declarer's husband > who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the > trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and > therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we > both read and > reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because > she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was > misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I > don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy > Your ruling was correct. This is a two trick penalty. L64A2 clearly indicates that it is referring to tricks played after the established revoke, not tricks played after the card that could have been played to the revoke trick. If a) Declarer won at least 2 tricks after trick 5 and b) Declarer won a trick with any spade (which could have legally been played to the revoke trick) the conditions of L64A2 are met, and the penalty is 2 tricks. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 02:17:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 02:17:38 +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 CAA17783 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 02:17:29 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-145.access.net.il [192.116.198.145]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA07061; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:20:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <361F894C.63C834C3@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:20:28 +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: Centering at Butler References: <361D1F90.2B2DC036@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman I receivedthis message 3 times , other two messages twice ... all this until now .....Did you feed your machine with bad Scitch instead of a marvellous bottle for David Stevenson ...???? Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > Suppose there are 11 scores of +600 and one -2200. The datum score > > > will > > > be +600, and 11 tables will see no result, with the twelfth scoring > > > -21 > > > (-21.11 at Bastille). The average is -1.75. .......snip > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 03:04:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 03:04:47 +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 DAA17907 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 03:04:40 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zS2Uy-0004Ek-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 17:08:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:58:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <361EE04B.6B9BDB6D@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. >Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had >revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a diamond and >did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while >they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take >another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two tricks as >declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a trick with >the card that could have been played on the revoke. Declarer's husband >who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the >trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and >therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we both read and >reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because >she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was >misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I >don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy It is true that the wording of L64A2 is poor. in England/Wales a club TD would be unlikely to get a pass in their test without a good understanding of revokes. Despite RTFLB I would expect any club TD who has passed the test to be able to do revokes without the Law book. L64A2: and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. The wording is heavy-handed and your colleague TD no doubt confused because of the word "subsequently". He has presumably decided that this refers to subsequent to the one trick that is transferred while in fact it means subsequent to the revoke. How do I know that this is what it means? Consider the following argument. Assume, for argument's sake, that subsequently means subsequent to the transferred trick, as your colleague thought. If there are fewer than two tricks available after and including the revoke trick then there will only be one [or none!] transferred: OK, let's assume there are two such tricks available [or more]. Which is the trick that is transferred first? The Law does not say. Your friend assumed that it was the one in which the revoke card was *played* but there is no such requirement in the Laws. The TD could transfer any trick he liked: perhaps the first available one for the club pro, and the last available one for charming young ladies . [In fact, if we were to say that it is always the first one then there is always a subsequent one available.] This reading of the Law cannot be right. It is therefore assumed that the law means that subsequently refers to subsequent to the revoke. What does this mean? Well, it means that the Lawmakers meant that if there are two tricks available after and including the revoke then two tricks are transferred. This is the normal interpretation of this Law. Perhaps the lawmakers could note that this wording could be worked on a bit for 2007 [and for 2003: the equivalent Rubber Law is worse while meaning the same!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 07:45:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:45:35 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18770 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:45:24 +1000 Received: from mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.8]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA23525 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:48:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA27951 ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:48:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:48:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: BLML Subject: Re: Statistics Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote, in another thread: > Sorry for all those duplicate posts ! [snip] > BTW, I shall not count all these duplications in the statistics. This > was not an attempt to climb back up the posters ladder ! I didn't know your statistics were a contest. So, who's winning? :-) Seriously, I appreciate the amount of time some people have chosen to devote to this list. They are a big part of what makes BLML so interesting to the rest of us lurkers. I will use this opportunity to share a funny ruling story from my last tournament. In a Swiss team event, a player made an OBOOT, bidding 1D in third seat. The bid was not accepted, so his partner got barred for the duration. In the next match, the same player made another OBOOT, this time bidding 1C in second seat. When I gave this ruling, I said "That's a lower ranking bid than before, so the penalty isn't as severe as the last time." Of course I later explained the real reason why the two cases led to different rulings. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 08:09:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:09:36 +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 IAA18959 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:09:29 +1000 Received: from modem119.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.247] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zS7Fv-00044l-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:12:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:10:57 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." ---------- > From: John A Kuchenbrod > To: Richard F Beye > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? > Date: 06 October 1998 15:08 > > From Richard: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John A Kuchenbrod > > > > >The question remains: when is the trick over? > > > > Law 65 A > > As it appears: > > A. Completed Trick > When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns > his own card face down near him on the table. > ++++ I have not been following this thread closely but I happened to glance at this message and I feel a blind urge to contribute a thought or two. 1. The trick is whole when each player has legally contributed a card to it. That is Law 44B. Law 65A states a procedure starting from the point at which a trick is complete. (Let us not forget that 'A. Completed Trick' is just a heading, not to be read as part of the law!) Law 67A is relevant in some of the circumstances arising. Quitting a trick is more significant in general than completing it. 2. Note that each time the laws speak they use the word 'contributed' - this signifies that the card has been put to the trick in question, possibly inadvertently as in pulling out two cards together or possibly with intent which may include inattentively playing twice to the same trick. A card is not contributed to trick one when the Director establishes that it was played in error to a trick two that is not yet started. 3. If the Director determines that a faced card was not contributed to the previous trick then he has to consider whether it was faced as a lead to the next trick, or being faced by the player whose turn it is to lead he should deem it played. If he does not deem it led then it is simply an exposed card - Law 48 or 49. The use of 'lead' and 'led' in the laws implies a purposeful action, facing a card with intent to follow to someone else's presumed lead is not leading. 4. A lead is not invalidated because the previous trick is not turned over, or some card of it is not. There is a procedural flaw but the lead still stands as a lead. So does a subsequent play to that lead. The statement in Law 66A fits to this. Not having read every posting to this thread I do not know whether any of this is germane, but I thought I would say it even if I am just adding to Herman's statistics. :-) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 08:21:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:21:55 +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 IAA18997 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:21:49 +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 SAA00118 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810102225.SAA06313@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Barry Wolk on Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:48:52 -0500 (CDT)) Subject: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk writes: > I will use this opportunity to share a funny ruling story from my > last tournament. In a Swiss team event, a player made an OBOOT, > bidding 1D in third seat. The bid was not accepted, so his partner > got barred for the duration. In the next match, the same player made > another OBOOT, this time bidding 1C in second seat. When I gave this > ruling, I said "That's a lower ranking bid than before, so the penalty > isn't as severe as the last time." Has anyone else encountered funny or interesting rulings? I liked the beer card ruling, which makde it into the ACBL Bulletin. LHO was dealer, and RHO opened 1D out of turn. This barred LHO. After two passes, RHO opened 2D, and the director told LHO that she was correct to alert that bid as Flannery (her agreement) even though she was barred. Playing against the club director, partner dropped the C2 on the table. The director ruled that it was a minor penalty card, and then (incorrectly) that partner could not play any card lower than the deuce until the deuce was played. -- 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 Oct 11 14:26:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:26:03 +1000 Received: from node21.frontiernet.net (root@node21.frontiernet.net [209.130.129.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA19526 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:25:54 +1000 Received: from bickford (as5300-8-64.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [209.130.149.67]) by node21.frontiernet.net (8.8.8a/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA121028 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:29:23 -0400 Message-ID: <05f701bdf4cf$f27c9360$649482d1@bickford> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Is it Authorized Information??? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:30:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05F4_01BDF4AE.6AA188E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05F4_01BDF4AE.6AA188E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At a local (Upper New York State) Sectional this weekend, I ran into the following situation. An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. What is the feeling of this forum? Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford bickford@frontiernet.net ------=_NextPart_000_05F4_01BDF4AE.6AA188E0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Bill Bickford.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Bill Bickford.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bickford;Bill FN:Bill Bickford EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:bickford@frontiernet.net REV:19981011T043058Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_05F4_01BDF4AE.6AA188E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 16:33:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:33:08 +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 QAA19767 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:33:02 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-15.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.119]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA21585 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 02:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362052AE.7E328F52@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 02:39:42 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) References: <199810102225.SAA06313@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not being as experienced as most of the directors on this list, shortly after I had passed my director's test, I was directing in the Novice (0-5) section of the NABC's in Toronto. I was called to the table and the person sitting in the pass out seat showed me her cards and said " I really don't have enough to bid but I know we have to play all the boards so what should I do?" She was very relieved after I told her it was quite OK to pass. Nancy David Grabiner wrote: > Barry Wolk writes: > > > I will use this opportunity to share a funny ruling story from my > > last tournament. In a Swiss team event, a player made an OBOOT, > > bidding 1D in third seat. The bid was not accepted, so his partner > > got barred for the duration. In the next match, the same player made > > another OBOOT, this time bidding 1C in second seat. When I gave this > > ruling, I said "That's a lower ranking bid than before, so the penalty > > isn't as severe as the last time." > > Has anyone else encountered funny or interesting rulings? I liked the > beer card ruling, which makde it into the ACBL Bulletin. > > LHO was dealer, and RHO opened 1D out of turn. This barred LHO. After > two passes, RHO opened 2D, and the director told LHO that she was > correct to alert that bid as Flannery (her agreement) even though she > was barred. > > Playing against the club director, partner dropped the C2 on the table. > The director ruled that it was a minor penalty card, and then > (incorrectly) that partner could not play any card lower than the deuce > until the deuce was played. > > -- > 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 Oct 11 18:02:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:02:50 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA19882 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:02:46 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p8-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.72]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA15358 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:05:48 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <35F9F55A.12D9@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:15:22 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) References: <199810102225.SAA06313@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <362052AE.7E328F52@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not a funny ruling but a delightful comment. Called to table of LOLs but good players. Declarer in 3NT making five. Lost the first two tricks to an ace and king. LHO revoked on trick six but declarer had taken all remainding tricks. L64B1. No penalty. "Are you sure!!" asks declarer. Yes I reply but will recheck Laws for you which I did and read relevant law. Next week she approached me and triumphantly declared "I thought you were wrong last week. I've discussed it with several people and all agree the should be a penalty." One of said people was at table with me so I asked her to explain. "Oh I didn't look at the laws but just felt there should be a penalty for a revoke". Bring back the days of an automatic two trick penalty!! Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 20:56:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:56:33 +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 UAA20066 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:56:27 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA25049 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:59:22 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 11 Oct 98 11:58 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981009153308.00692880@pop.mindspring.com> > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > At 09:47 AM 10/9/98 -0400, Steve wrote: > >> From: "E.Angad-Gaur" > >> Strong competetion, matches of four. > >> W/NZ > >> Bidding : > >> W N E S West's hand : > >> 1S 2H x!? 4H S KQJ863 > >> p p ....x p H -- > >> 4S p p 5H D 643 > >> p p x p C K865 > >> p p > >> > >> ! = Alert , ?=asked and explained as negative > >> ....x= clear hesitation and doubled. > >> Result : 5H! -1 > >> EW called me and they found that 4S was not permitted after the clear > >> hesitation of E. Do you agree ? > >[symbols changed for clarity.] > > > As to the LA issue, it really doesn't matter much exactly how EW pair > play > their negative doubles. The double of 2H strongly suggests minors, and > both > the final double and West's void indicate that East holds 3-4 hearts, so > East is fairly well marked with short spades, with a stiff the most > likely > holding. When partner, who is known to be short in your suit, makes a > clear > penalty double of the opponents in your void suit, it's time to respect > partner's judgement. Imagine the opprobrium which will justifiably be > forthcoming if you take out the double in this position and find partner > with, say X AJ9X QTXX AXXX, when neither side can take more than 8 > tricks. > It clearly does matter how the pair plays their negative doubles. I regard the hand you propose as a penalty double and the "justifiable opprobrium" will fall on my partner for breaking with system if he chooses to make a -ve X on this hand. Disciplined -ve doubles should contain a doubleton (or 3 small) in support of my suit and Hxx (or 4 small) at most in opps. If we are playing LOTT then I *know* that partner's LOTT count is out by 2 tricks as he should place me with 51?? Combine this with the fact that I have nothing resembling the defensive tricks typical of a standard 1 level opener and pass becomes remarkably unattractive. That said I still think pass is an LA by ACBL (and Dutch?) standards (and suggested by the hesitation). An adjustment would also be reasonable under UK/European standards if the TD is unable to establish the methods in use. This does not mean he should not try. Tim West-Meads (Apologies to Michael for the double posting) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 11 21:43:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:43:58 +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 VAA20172 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:43:51 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199810111143.VAA20172@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:47:15 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA001836433; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:47:13 +0200 Subject: Re: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:47:13 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <35F9F55A.12D9@xtra.co.nz> from "B A Small" at Sep 11, 1998 09:15:22 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 B A Small: >Called to table of LOLs but good players. Declarer in 3NT making five. >Lost the first two tricks to an ace and king. LHO revoked on trick six >but declarer had taken all remainding tricks. L64B1. No penalty. "Are >you sure!!" asks declarer. Yes I reply but will recheck Laws for you >which I did and read relevant law. Next week she approached me and >triumphantly declared "I thought you were wrong last week. I've >discussed it with several people and all agree the should be a penalty." >One of said people was at table with me so I asked her to explain. "Oh I >didn't look at the laws but just felt there should be a penalty for a >revoke". Bring back the days of an automatic two trick penalty!! Hey, that was fun. You could bid and make 8 clubs against their cold H grand ;-). Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 01:08:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:08:01 +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 BAA22769 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:07:50 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-160.access.net.il [192.116.198.160]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAA18243; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:11:09 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3620CA7F.AA49BAAE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:10:55 +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: Revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry friends , but i am not sure you are right ..... It depends on the real bridge events at play..... I remember exactly this case , which happened to me 6 years ago , when first time acted as TD at The Int. tel_Aviv Festival , under Hans v. Staverren as chief TD..... Before I gave the players the final answer I consulted him ..... The Law 64A2 shows very explicit ( maybe hard and difficult wording , but not poor and still very explicit) ..."an ADDITIONAL trick.....with the card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick ......" Nancy didn't tell us - or maybe I didn't read it well - if declarer won any trick after trick 5 (I only noticed that .."the contract was 1NT ....."). If after the revoke the offender won only the trick with the card which could be played to the revoke trick - only that one is paid back. This was my decision then (backed by HvS) and is my opinion now. If the offender won some other tricks - between trick 6 and 9 - then 2 tricks paid .......... What really happened at the bridge table ?????? Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. > >Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had > >revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a diamond and > >did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while > >they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take > >another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two tricks as > >declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a trick with > >the card that could have been played on the revoke. Declarer's husband > >who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the > >trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and > >therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we both read and > >reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because > >she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was > >misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I > >don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy > > It is true that the wording of L64A2 is poor. in England/Wales a club > TD would be unlikely to get a pass in their test without a good > understanding of revokes. Despite RTFLB I would expect any club TD who > has passed the test to be able to do revokes without the Law book. > > L64A2: > and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the > offending player, then, > if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, > (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the > non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was > subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he > could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick > is transferred to the non-offending side. > > The wording is heavy-handed and your colleague TD no doubt confused > because of the word "subsequently". He has presumably decided that this > refers to subsequent to the one trick that is transferred while in fact > it means subsequent to the revoke. > > How do I know that this is what it means? Consider the following > argument. > > Assume, for argument's sake, that subsequently means subsequent to the > transferred trick, as your colleague thought. If there are fewer than > two tricks available after and including the revoke trick then there > will only be one [or none!] transferred: OK, let's assume there are two > such tricks available [or more]. > > Which is the trick that is transferred first? The Law does not say. > Your friend assumed that it was the one in which the revoke card was > *played* but there is no such requirement in the Laws. The TD could > transfer any trick he liked: perhaps the first available one for the > club pro, and the last available one for charming young ladies . [In > fact, if we were to say that it is always the first one then there is > always a subsequent one available.] > > This reading of the Law cannot be right. It is therefore assumed that > the law means that subsequently refers to subsequent to the revoke. > What does this mean? Well, it means that the Lawmakers meant that if > there are two tricks available after and including the revoke then two > tricks are transferred. This is the normal interpretation of this Law. > > Perhaps the lawmakers could note that this wording could be worked on > a bit for 2007 [and for 2003: the equivalent Rubber Law is worse while > meaning the same!]. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 01:35:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:35:50 +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 BAA22850 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:35:44 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-160.access.net.il [192.116.198.160]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAA25642; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:38:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3620D104.E8D3F04F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:38:44 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Bickford CC: Bridge Laws Forum Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? References: <05f701bdf4cf$f27c9360$649482d1@bickford> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the club Bill As much as I remember it is your first message ..... The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . Now to business : 1) Law 72A4 tells us ..."the innocent side ..... it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous.". It refers to the first action done by the NO side , after the irregularity occurred. Your partner decision is AI for yourself and you allowed to infer whatever you want , as long as he behaved right (I mean not gestures , remarks etc...) 2) If you have any agreements about what to bid or play after any kind of irregularity - they should be available and disclosed - either by alerting or by telling opponents when TD summoned - accordingly to Law 75A. Welcome again Dany Bill Bickford wrote: > > At a local (Upper New York State) Sectional this weekend, I ran into the > following situation. > > An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my > partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I > have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the > directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to > take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether > or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and > the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now > discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. > > What is the feeling of this forum? > > Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford > bickford@frontiernet.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Bill Bickford > > Bill Bickford > > Additional Information: > Version 2.1 > Last Name Bickford > First NameBill > Revision 19981011T043058Z From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 02:18:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 02:18:43 +1000 Received: from node21.frontiernet.net (root@node21.frontiernet.net [209.130.129.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23063 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 02:18:34 +1000 Received: from bickford (as5300-8-64.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [209.130.149.67]) by node21.frontiernet.net (8.8.8a/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA53130; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:21:03 -0400 Message-ID: <071501bdf533$5ea8cd20$649482d1@bickford> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:22:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0712_01BDF511.D679D640" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0712_01BDF511.D679D640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry; no cats. I had a pet rock once; does that count? Cheers...................../Bill Bickford bickford@frontiernet.net -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Bill Bickford Cc: Bridge Laws Forum Date: Sunday, October 11, 1998 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? >Welcome to the club Bill > >As much as I remember it is your first message ..... >The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are >cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; >they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . > >Now to business : >1) Law 72A4 tells us ..."the innocent side ..... it is appropriate >to select that action most advantageous.". It refers to >the first action done by the NO side , after the irregularity occurred. >Your partner decision is AI for yourself and you allowed to >infer whatever you want , as long as he behaved right (I mean >not gestures , remarks etc...) >2) If you have any agreements about what to bid or play after >any kind of irregularity - they should be available and disclosed - >either by alerting or by telling opponents when TD summoned - >accordingly to Law 75A. > >Welcome again >Dany > > > >Bill Bickford wrote: >> >> At a local (Upper New York State) Sectional this weekend, I ran into the >> following situation. >> >> An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my >> partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I >> have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the >> directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to >> take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether >> or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and >> the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now >> discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. >> >> What is the feeling of this forum? >> >> Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford >> bickford@frontiernet.net >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >> >> Bill Bickford >> >> Bill Bickford >> >> Additional Information: >> Version 2.1 >> Last Name Bickford >> First NameBill >> Revision 19981011T043058Z > ------=_NextPart_000_0712_01BDF511.D679D640 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Bill Bickford.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Bill Bickford.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bickford;Bill FN:Bill Bickford EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:bickford@frontiernet.net REV:19981011T162239Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0712_01BDF511.D679D640-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 03:23:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:23:33 +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 DAA23169 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:23:23 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19171 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810111726.NAA23804@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <05f701bdf4cf$f27c9360$649482d1@bickford> Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford writes: > At a local (Upper New York State) Sectional this weekend, I ran into the > following situation. > An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my > partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I > have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the > directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to > take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether > or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and > the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now > discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. You cannot have a conventional agreement here, but you must be allowed to take an inference based on general bridge knowledge; when your side does nothing wrong, you cannot have UI. An example I remember: 1S-P-P-1H-1S. The opponent's 1H bid is AI to partner, and the fact that he would have probably bid 2H had he been required to correct it is also AI. Based on general bridge knowledge, partner can conclude that I did not want to bid 2S over the expected 2H, and thus I have good spades but not enough playing strength to make 2S safe. Had I bid 2S, there is not the same inference available from general bridge knowledge of the difference between 2S over 1H and 2S over 2H. In theory, we should be allowed a non-conventional agreement here (2S over 1H shows short hearts because it avoids the risk of a correction to 4H), since non-conventional agreements cannot be Another example of a non-conventional agreement: double of an insufficient bid may not be pulled. This was suggested in a book on doubling. -- 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 Oct 12 04:40:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:40:14 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23351 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:38:33 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-69.uunet.be [194.7.13.69]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA16176 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3620FA25.DEFAD404@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 19:34:13 +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: Re: Statistics References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL wrote, in another thread: > > > Sorry for all those duplicate posts ! > [snip] > > BTW, I shall not count all these duplications in the statistics. This > > was not an attempt to climb back up the posters ladder ! > > I didn't know your statistics were a contest. So, who's winning? :-) > David Stevenson of course. But just as seriously, I don't count my statistics message for the statistics either ! But I will count this one - since it is a genuine answer to a genuine question. Great - another one ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 04:42:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:42:58 +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 EAA23367 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:42:52 +1000 Received: from default (user-38lcmi3.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.67]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA25081 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981011144535.00693800@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:45:35 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? In-Reply-To: <199810111726.NAA23804@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <05f701bdf4cf$f27c9360$649482d1@bickford> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 PM 10/11/98 -0400, David G. wrote: >Bill Bickford writes: > >> At a local (Upper New York State) Sectional this weekend, I ran into the >> following situation. > >> An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my >> partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I >> have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the >> directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to >> take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether >> or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and >> the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now >> discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. > >You cannot have a conventional agreement here, but you must be allowed >to take an inference based on general bridge knowledge; when your side >does nothing wrong, you cannot have UI. > Didn't we just have this discussion? In fact your side may be in possession of UI even when you have done nothing wrong. I don't like it, but there it is. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 05:07:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 05:07:05 +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 FAA23405 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 05:06:59 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07853 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810111910.MAA07853@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:07:39 -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 Tim West-Meads wrote: > > That said I still think pass is an LA by ACBL (and Dutch?) standards (and > suggested by the hesitation). An adjustment would also be reasonable under > UK/European standards if the TD is unable to establish the methods in use. > This does not mean he should not try. > Whatever the ACBL thinks, a pass is not an LA if none of opener's peers would seriously it. By "opener's peers" I mean those players of equal ability who play the same methods. In current ACBL practice "establish the methods" does not mean asking a pair about their methods, as any testimony in favor of their side would be termed "self-serving" and hence not believable, unless it accords with the beliefs of that particular TD or AC. I urge everyone who plays a method that may not be familiar to TDs/ACs to have a notebook documenting such partnership agreements on hand. Karen McCallum (sp?) won an NABC appeals case mainly on the basis that she could produce documentary evidence of her partnership's non-standard agreement about a notrump auction. I lost one because my bidding notebook was left back home. Evidently the change from "reasonably suggested" to "demonstrably suggested" in L16A does not mean that a TD/AC has to demonstrate in some way that an alternative is logical. Maybe someone on BLML can tell me what it does mean. I do not accept a currently popular ACBL interpretation, which is that if an AC can come up with an example hand that would result in the success of an action, then that action is a logical alternative (in this case, a trump stack in doubler's hand). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 07:06:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 07:06:13 +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 HAA23619 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 07:06:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSSk7-0005fV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:09:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:26:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes In-Reply-To: <01bdf308$a51a63e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I hope this helps:- I have put the extracts that were quoted on BLML on my Bridgepage. When I have a moment I might look at the rest of the minutes to see if anything else might be worthy of addition. Note that a couple of items were too sensitive for general publication so they will not be included, but suggestions are otherwise welcomed from those with copies of the actual minutes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 07:47:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 07:47:51 +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 HAA23690 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 07:47:45 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.222] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zSTLe-0007Rt-00; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:48:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bdf561$156957a0$de2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: When is the auction over? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:48:57 +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 This could well be included in the "funny rulings" thread, but it seemed to me an interesting question in its own right. South opened 1S, North bid 2S, South bid 3H (long suit game try in principle) and North bid 4S. South, whose hand was: AKJ109 AQxxx void Axx was considering whether or not to make a further move when West led a trump, and North spread his dummy, which was: xxx Kx QJxx Q10xx South (prudently as it turned out) decided to play the hand in game, but he said to me afterwards: "if I'd seen dummy and it was: Qxx Kx xxxx Kxxx could I have bid six spades?" Well, could he? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 08:29:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:29:34 +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 IAA23741 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:29:25 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.72] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zSU0I-0007hA-00; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:30:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003501bdf566$e8675f80$de2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:31:35 +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 Your thoughts on this thread appear to me to lead (no pun intended) to a somewhat awkward conclusion. The case in point was this: Declarer (South) was in a spade contract. A round of clubs was played, to which all followed. East left his club (which had won the trick) face up on the table for so long after the others had turned down theirs that South became confused, and thought that East's card was a lead to the next trick. So he ruffed it, whereupon West (who had some clubs left) "overruffed" (since he thought that South had led a spade to the next trick and was following to the spade that South had led). Now: >1. The trick is whole when each player has legally contributed >a card to it. That is Law 44B. So far, so good, except that it appears to me that we need a point at which a trick becomes "complete" as opposed to merely coming into existence. >Law 65A states a procedure >starting from the point at which a trick is complete. (Let us >not forget that 'A. Completed Trick' is just a heading, not to >be read as part of the law!) That is so, but one assumes that the headings serve some purpose. From the point of view of defining whether a card is played to the "current" or the "next" trick, one needs to know when the current trick is over and the next trick begins. If one wanted to know that, the part of the Laws called "Completed Trick" appears to be the obvious place to look, and I would think that L65A rather than L44B would be regarded by most as the one that defines when a trick is complete. If this were not so, Laws 64A and 64B would be amalgamated rather than separated. Of course, one understands why the Laws are as they are. They are designed to cater for the position in which a player who has won the current trick and has some clear plan in mind leads to the next trick before the slowcoaches around him have turned their cards over from the current trick. If players were prevented from doing that by a law which said that they could not do it, the game would be simpler, and fairer, but slower. >Law 67A is relevant in some of >the circumstances arising. Quitting a trick is more significant >in general than completing it. Well, they are two different things. An individual, or a pair, can "quit" a trick by turning his (their) cards face down, whereupon the trick is over as far as he (they) are concerned. But a trick is "complete", or so it seems to me, only by agreement of all four players, which agreement they express by turning their cards face down. >2. Note that each time the laws speak they use the word >'contributed' - this signifies that the card has been put to the >trick in question, possibly inadvertently as in pulling out two >cards together or possibly with intent which may include >inattentively playing twice to the same trick. Well, in the case in point, South "inattentively" played to what he (but nobody else) thought was the next trick. In my view, as a result of his inattention he ended up playing two cards to the current trick. The problem may be that this precise situation is a novelty not envisaged by the lawmakers. In general, a player who plays the first and fifth cards to a trick has just forgotten that he led to the trick and is "following suit again" - he has not created the fantasy that the next trick is already in progress and that someone else has already led to it. >A card is not >contributed to trick one when the Director establishes that >it was played in error to a trick two that is not yet started. That is certainly what happened in this case; South, thinking that East had led to trick n+1, ruffed East's card in error. The trouble was that this induced a further "error" from West. So far, you appear to me to believe that South's card was not a "contribution" to the current trick - and indeed it was not, for such was clearly not South's intent. >3. If the Director determines that a faced card was not >contributed to the previous trick then he has to consider >whether it was faced as a lead to the next trick, or being >faced by the player whose turn it is to lead he should >deem it played. It was not South's lead to the next trick, and South certainly did not intend to lead a low spade to the next trick even if it had been his lead. >If he does not deem it led then it is >simply an exposed card - Law 48 or 49. The use of 'lead' >and 'led' in the laws implies a purposeful action, facing a >card with intent to follow to someone else's presumed >lead is not leading. I agree with you. So, South has an exposed card - but he is declarer, so there is no penalty. >4. A lead is not invalidated because the previous trick is >not turned over, or some card of it is not. There is a >procedural flaw but the lead still stands as a lead. So >does a subsequent play to that lead. Ah. But South's card was not a lead, so West's card was not a "subsequent play to that lead". One could take the view that West's card was just another exposed card, which because he is a defender carries a penalty that South's card does not. As I said in an earlier post, that is the mechanistic view - and, since I don't really care whether mechanical laws are fair or unfair, I would have sympathy with a Director who ruled in that way. However, I would far rather have the mechanical law clearly defined so that a player who plays a card before all four cards to the current trick have been turned down is deemed to play to the current trick, regardless of his intent. If you get the type 1 laws right, then you don't need the type 2 laws which give everyone so much grief. In your thinking (and in mine) South's card was not a lead. What, then, was West's card (since it was not in reality a "subsequent play to that lead", even though West thought it was)? >The statement in >Law 66A fits to this. Well, the statement in 66A implies that a trick may be "complete" for one side yet still "incomplete" for the other side. Again, one can see the reason for this - it means that a quick player can't "fast card" a slow player by slamming the lead to the next trick onto the table before the opponent has digested the implications of the current trick. Most praiseworthy - in a type 2 sense - and also most unnecessary if only the type 1 rule "you can't play to trick n+1 until everyone has finished with trick n by turning their card face down" were implemented. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 08:40:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:40:48 +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 IAA23803 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:40:41 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.72] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zSUBH-0001mD-00; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:41:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003e01bdf568$7e7d80c0$de2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:42:57 +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 DWS wrote: >Note that a couple of items >were too sensitive for general publication so they will not be included, Is it just me, or does anyone else find this odd? What could a Commission whose remit is to define the Laws of bridge, and to provide guidance for those bodies under its jurisdiction, put in its minutes that was "too sensitive for general publication"? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 08:50:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:50:11 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23826 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:50:05 +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 SAA25569 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810112253.SAA01899@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <003201bdf561$156957a0$de2e63c3@david-burn> (Dburn@btinternet.com) Subject: Re: When is the auction over? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > This could well be included in the "funny rulings" thread, but it > seemed to me an interesting question in its own right. > South opened 1S, North bid 2S, South bid 3H (long suit game try in > principle) and North bid 4S. South, whose hand was: > AKJ109 AQxxx void Axx > was considering whether or not to make a further move when West led a > trump This is a premature lead (Law 24), since the auction is not over. East is barred for one round, and the card becomes a major penalty card, which means that it must be led when appropriate. > and North spread his dummy, which was: > xxx Kx QJxx Q10xx This is an infraction of Law 24 by North; if North thought South hadn't passed, he should not have spread the dummy. Once the dummy is spread, South is barred for one round, and that ends the auction unless West does something. > South (prudently as it turned out) decided to play the hand in game, > but he said to me afterwards: "if I'd seen dummy and it was: > Qxx Kx xxxx Kxxx > could I have bid six spades?" This could be considered a case in which the Laws do not provide adequate redress for West's premature lead, because of the potential of confusing North. I wouldn't apply it because North is partly at fault, but I could see an application, allowing an adjusted score. -- 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 Oct 12 11:06:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:06:08 +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 LAA24052 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:06:01 +1000 Received: from modem98.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.226] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zSWUL-0001bW-00; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 02:09:30 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 02:08:41 +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. "Bridge is a mind game in which the error most frequently fatal is to think." ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: clear rules > Date: 09 October 1998 23:52 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > ++++ All of the items discussed in Lille had been the subject of > > debate. It is the Committee's function to resolve debatable > > questions. > (snip)> Marvin L. French:- > A while back in time, when I was new to BLML, my first complaint > was that BLMLers seemed to be arguing needlessly about the > interpretation of various laws. Where are the authors of those > laws?, I asked. Why not just ask them? Why don't they speak up? > > Well, now several particpants in the lawmaking, Grattan and Ton, > have done exactly what I had hoped, stepping forward to offer > interpretations of arguable points. And finally, at last, these are > not just personal opinions, but official opinions of the WBF LC. > What's more, they will be promulgated to all NAs, to be adopted (I > hope!) as coming from the only agency authorized by the WBF > to interpret the Laws. This is great! ++++ The WBFLC has made it clear that whilst it reserves final decisions to itself, it is for zonal authorities to make interim decisions when need arises. Additionally, it seems to be accepted that NBOs should moderate the quality and quantitative aspects that give judgemental standards to the principles of the law, and do so to meet conditions in their own local bridge environment.++++ > Political considerations no doubt have an adverse > effect on the quality of some of the interpretations, but that > can't be helped. ++++ Not so much as you might think because of the scope for local adjustments cited above.++++ > > I think all we can ask is that the WBF LC give serious attention > to suggestions, especially from those who have participated in BLML > discussions. That seems to be the case, and there will no doubt be > repeats of the process. I don't think harsh criticism of the WBF LC > is warranted if they do that, even if a few of the interpretations > don't appeal to some, or even to all. Rather, I would hope that > pressure could be brought to bear on members of all LCs, not just > the WBF LC, to participate, maybe only as lurkers, in BLML. ++++ I suspect there are a couple of lurkers you are not conscious of and see below ++++ I don't > see how anyone can do an LC job well without communicating with > that part of the bridge population who are interested in the Laws. > At least one current WBF LC member has explicitly expressed an > unwillingness to participate in any such internet forum. That's not > a good attitude, and I would like to see Ton, as chairman of the > WBF LC, try to get it corrected in one way or another. ++++ Well, no; I think each is entitled to make a personal decision and pressure could be counterproductive, whatever this means. The main point is that WBFLC has now asked me to collect matters for discussion, which I did anyway for Lille, and BLML is the most prolific source for them. I have to reduce subjects to manageable proportions and in Lille the third meeting was a clearing house session, short sharp answers having taken items for lengthier discussion in the first two meetings. The selection of subjects still allowed me to take forward an occasional subject raised by just a single contributor - e.g. the law 17 item. I tried to evaluate materials objectively with as little regard as I could muster for my personal opinion. At the moment I am just dumping subjects onto a memory board for later sifting. If anyone thinks an item ought to be on it no doubt I shall read the suggestion. Two way communication is the object, although achieved at a slow pace. The majority of the committee are not burying their heads in the sand, indeed they are anxious that TDs in remote places are not misled by some of the quaint opinions it (BLML) circulates. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 11:10:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:10:26 +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 LAA24076 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:10:19 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-23.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.220]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA02492 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3621588C.7C1F0CA1@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:17:00 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: funny rulings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi... This is my last one. Not a ruling but funny!! We were playing in the local dupe and bid boxes were relatively new. My right hand opponent had never used them so we carefully explained how to make a bid, --put the card corresponding with your bid on the table and then in turn each player will do the same. Things went fine until it was her turn to bid after two rounds of bidding had been completed. She looked me straight in the eye and said "May I have review of the bidding please?".....!!!! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 11:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:27:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA24107 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:27:00 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSWI1-0005EJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:56:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:31:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI Ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This looks interesting to me: A7 Dlr: W A3 Vul: N/S J7 KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P 8x P 5C X AP Q542 8x This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the minors. East wanted to know why North bid over 4Dx, and North wanted to know where East got his double of 3NT from! 5Cx went for 1100. Note: those of you who hear about this hand elsewhere will realise that there was a dispute over some of the "facts": however, I do not think that is of much interest: the interest lies in the correct ruling if the facts are as shown. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 11:29:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:29:02 +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 LAA24121 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:28:57 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSWI1-0005EF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:56:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3EVgWTAEZSI2EwmS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:42:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <3620CA7F.AA49BAAE@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Nancy didn't tell us - or maybe I didn't read it well - >if declarer won any trick after trick 5 >> Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> >declarer had taken several subsequent tricks -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 11:30:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:30:49 +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 LAA24139 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:30:43 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSWI4-0005EH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:56:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:37:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: My Bridgepage [advert] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been having a major update of my Bridgepage [and the rest of my Website: my Catpage, my Trainpage and my Generalpage]. I have not completed the update yet since the links need checking and I still have one article to write but I have done much of the work. I have added eight articles written in Lille that will also be posted on RGB. I have added the main extracts from the Laws Committee [WBFLC] in Lille which have previously been posted on BLML. I have updated the articles on rulings from the Australian Directors' magazine. And I have a lovely article on why women are not top players! No, I did not write it! So, please have a visit. Submissions or suggestions welcome. Here is a Summary of the Contents: Bridge Information 7 articles Bridge Events 3 articles Laws of Bridge 7 links plus 8 articles Major links 20 links General links 53 links General bridge articles 9 articles Articles from Lille 5 articles Systems and conventions 2 articles Stories of players 6 articles Funny articles 7 articles Rulings articles 10 articles Organising bridge 3 articles Altogether there are 161 articles on the site. Enjoy! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 13:39:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:39:12 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24325 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:39:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA05562 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:42:40 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:42:40 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI Ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > This looks interesting to me: > > A7 Dlr: W > A3 Vul: N/S > J7 > KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S > KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P > KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D > KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P > 8x P 5C X AP > Q542 > 8x > > This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South > was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the > minors. > > East wanted to know why North bid over 4Dx, and North wanted to know > where East got his double of 3NT from! 5Cx went for 1100. > > Note: those of you who hear about this hand elsewhere will realise > that there was a dispute over some of the "facts": however, I do not > think that is of much interest: the interest lies in the correct ruling > if the facts are as shown. I presume the two dots before Wests second round pass indicate a hesitation. On this assumption I think there are LAs to Easts first double (ie Pass) and the hesitation also makes the double more favourable to success. If South believes that Norths 3NT shows minors, then he will still bid 4D. I also think a Pass of 4D is a logical alternative (East has little defense to a club contract). I adjust to 4D EW-600 (six down undoubled) for both sides. I dont believe the non-alert of 3NT has damaged EW and from the description above I am unable to even determine whether it was a misbid or alert failure. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 14:23:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:23:40 +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 OAA24379 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:23:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16942; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810120426.VAA16942@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 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 Bruce Small wrote: > > Not a funny ruling but a delightful comment. > > Called to table of LOLs but good players. Declarer in 3NT making five. > Lost the first two tricks to an ace and king. LHO revoked on trick six > but declarer had taken all remainding tricks. L64B1. No penalty. "Are > you sure!!" asks declarer. Yes I reply but will recheck Laws for you > which I did and read relevant law. Next week she approached me and > triumphantly declared "I thought you were wrong last week. I've > discussed it with several people and all agree the should be a penalty." > One of said people was at table with me so I asked her to explain. "Oh I > didn't look at the laws but just felt there should be a penalty for a > revoke". There are many these days who believe that when the Laws do not provide for a penalty or score adjustment, as when no damage is done by MI or misuse of UI, it is appropriate for the TD to assess a PP per L90. Such TDs might well say: "Madam, since you took all the tricks, from the revoke trick to the end of the hand, there is no penalty for the revoke. However, as a sop to assuage your indignation, I am assessing your opponents a 1/4 board matchpoint penalty for failing to follow correct procedure." > Bring back the days of an automatic two trick penalty!! The really automatic penalty came a long time ago, back to the days of auction bridge and early contract bridge: Auction Bridge, 1926, according to the Whist Club, New York: Two tricks for a side's first revoke; one trick for each subsequent revoke (if any). These tricks are taken at the end of the hand from the tricks of the revoking side and added to the tricks of the other side. If they make the total 12 or 13 tricks, they carry the proper slam bonus, and may be doubled or redoubled as with any other tricks. If the revoking side has not enough tricks to pay the penalty in full, surrending all it has pays the penalty. If it have no trick, there is no penalty. (From *Lenz on Bridge*, Sydney S. Lenz, a wonderful book everyone would enjoy). This was a really stiff penalty, as in auction bridge game and slam bonuses were awarded even if game or slam was not bid. Contract Bridge, 1927, according to The Whist Club, New York: Same as for auction bridge, except a game or slam must have been bid in order to get the bonus for game or slam made by reason of the penalty tricks. If the revoking side has not enough tricks to pay the full penalty, the other side gets 100 honor points (in addition to a single trick that may have been awarded). For a second revoke, the only penalty is the 100 points. In duplicate bridge, however, according to the Knickerbocker Whist Club, the penalty was merely 100 points, scored as honors, for each revoke. However, the revoking side must surrender any tricks gained as a result of the revoke (From *Contract Bridge Standards*, Wilbur C. Whitehead, 1928). Evidently a "protect the field" philosophy accounted for the lesser penalty in duplicate bridge. Contract Bridge, 1936, according to "The International Code," created by The Whist Club of New York, The Card Committee of the Portland Club, and the Commission Francaise du Bridge, in combination with The American Cooperating Committee, chaired by Ely Culbertson: Two tricks won after the revoke (including the revoke trick), and one such trick for each subsequent revoke. Duplicate bridge laws, as established by the United States Bridge Association, included identical revoke penalties. (This was the first time the revoke trick was not truly "automatic," in that the penalty does not include tricks won prior to the revoke. The 100 point bonus has been done away with, and the revoke penalty applies equally to every revoke.) Duplicate bridge 1987 and 1993 rubber bridge: the current revoke penalty was instituted. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 14:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:56:06 +1000 Received: from laxline.hpcl.co.in ([202.54.21.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA24444 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:55:51 +1000 Received: from sunflower.hpcl.co.in by laxline.hpcl.co.in with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1457.7) id 4T606QTF; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:32:10 +0530 Received: from nirad ([192.9.199.73]) by hpcl.co.in; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:34:16 +0530 Received: by nirad with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF5CB.CC4B6020@nirad>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:33:49 +0530 Message-ID: <01BDF5CB.CC4B6020@nirad> From: VINAY I DESAI To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Negative Dbl v/s Action Dbl Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:33:43 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, Everybody; I seek your comments on the following bridge hand from the National Masters'98 Tournament @ Mumbai,India. Vul: None Dealer: South KQx QJ98 QJx xxx xxx Axxx AKxx xxx Kxxxx x K Jxxxx JTx =20 xx ATxx AQxx Bidding: S W N E 1N=3D11-13 2D* Dbl** P*** P P P 2D*=3D Alerted by both E&W as D+H/S Dbl**=3D Aletred by N to E as Negative and by S to W as Action P***=3D E passed because a Negative Dbl was less likely to be converted = than=20 an Action Dbl; If E knew that the Dbl was Action he would = surely have bid 2H for P/Correct; here, he took a = chance that the Negative Dbl will not get converted;=20 Result: 2D Dbl 3 Down=20 Director ruled the Score stands. EW appealed.=20 AC dismissed the Appeal. Your views ?? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 15:28:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:28:04 +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 PAA24516 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:27:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24976; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810120527.WAA24976@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:25:29 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: >> And finally, at last, these are >> not just personal opinions, but official opinions of the WBF LC. >> What's more, they will be promulgated to all NAs, to be adopted (I >> hope!) as coming from the only agency authorized by the WBF >> to interpret the Laws. This is great! > > ++++ The WBFLC has made it clear that whilst it reserves > final decisions to itself, it is for zonal authorities to make interim > decisions when need arises. Additionally, it seems to be accepted that > NBOs should moderate the quality and quantitative aspects that > give judgemental standards to the principles of the law, and do so to > meet conditions in their own local bridge environment.++++ > I assume then, as an example, that an NA can enforce L20F1 strictly, ignoring the suggestion made by the WBF LC for light enforcement. > > Political considerations no doubt have an adverse > > effect on the quality of some of the interpretations, but that > > can't be helped. > > ++++ Not so much as you might think because of the scope > for local adjustments cited above.++++ > > Okay then, I take it back. Good, but not great. The effect of political considerations was greater than I thought if it includes wide latitude for "local adjustments." The ACBL can evidently do what it wants qualitatively and quantitatively in order "to meet conditions," whatever that signifies. I suppose it means that the ACBL stand on psychs will be unaffected, L20F1 will continue to be ignored, and the criterion for annulment of a NOS score adjustment will remain something less than what most would consider "irrational, wild, or gambling." Plus ca change... Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 17:53:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:53:08 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA24759 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:53:02 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA11645 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810120756.AAA11645@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Disqualified Contestants Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:52:17 -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 Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's decision. Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their opponents? 1. In a multi-section two-session matchpoint pair event, where they were second in their section in the first session, third in section in the second section, and ended up third overall My opinion: Every one of their results is thrown out, the opponents getting average-plus (60%, or their percentage score without the board, whichever is greater) on every such deal. 2. Similar event, but IMP-Pairs instead of matchpoint pairs My opinion: I have no idea. 3. In a Swiss team win-loss event, where they were 6-1, and the last match was a win, tying another 6-1 team My opinion: All matches that they did not lose are scored as losses. That was easy. 4. In a Swiss team Victory Point event, where they were 6-1 with enough VPs for second place My opinion: They get zero VPs. Opposing teams get 60% of the available VPs for their match, or actual VPs won, whichever is greater. 5. In a BAM event, where they won the board on which they were caught cheating, and also won the event My opinion: Every board they played is a loss. 6. In a knockout match, which they have lost by 1 IMP, but the size of the margin of defeat is a factor in the event My opinion: I have no idea Other opinions would be appreciated very much, Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 12 20:26:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:26:25 +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 UAA24996 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:26:19 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA16474 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:25:56 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:25:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disqualified Contestants In-Reply-To: <199810120756.AAA11645@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered > to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are > caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive > bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the > event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's > decision. > > Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their > opponents? Since this situation is fortunately extremely rare, I don't think that one should try to develop rules to cover every possible situation. If this ever happened in an event where I was directing, I'd simply throw out all the boards the cheaters played and give their opponents the score for a sit-out whenever they played the cheaters. 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 Tue Oct 13 01:14:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:14:10 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27818 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:14:02 +1000 Received: from default (user-38lc4ca.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.138]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23607 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981012111642.00693ea4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:16:42 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI Ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 AM 10/12/98 +0100, David S wrote: > > This looks interesting to me: > > A7 Dlr: W > A3 Vul: N/S > J7 > KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S > KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P > KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D > KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P > 8x P 5C X AP > Q542 > 8x > > This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South >was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the >minors. > > East wanted to know why North bid over 4Dx, and North wanted to know >where East got his double of 3NT from! 5Cx went for 1100. > Apparently the UI stems from South's alert of 3nt, and presumably the objection from EW is that North had a LA in passing 4D doubled, and that the alert somehow suggested the runout. Had EW asked and been given the answer by S that he was expecting the minors (!), I think they may well have had a reasonable argument. But in the absence of any clarification, South's alert does not suggest a runout, IMO. It is not clear, from North's hand, what the alert does mean, but the assumption that partner is expecting him to hold diamonds is a very long stretch. North does hold an undisclosed 7-card club suit, and it seems to me that 5C is pretty clear-cut. Is North's question about East's double really relevant here, or is North merely clouding the waters with a meaningless side issue? I think the latter. Just as North reasonably (and accurately) judged that 5C was apt to be safer than 4D doubled, East accurately (if not so reasonably) judged that 3nt was in deep trouble. Result stands. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:17:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:17:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27832 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:17:23 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSjmC-00015K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:20:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3GbA2QB$JgI2EwGj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:22:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > >On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> This looks interesting to me: >> >> A7 Dlr: W >> A3 Vul: N/S >> J7 >> KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S >> KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P >> KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D >> KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P >> 8x P 5C X AP >> Q542 >> 8x >> >> This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South >> was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the >> minors. >> >> East wanted to know why North bid over 4Dx, and North wanted to know >> where East got his double of 3NT from! 5Cx went for 1100. >> >> Note: those of you who hear about this hand elsewhere will realise >> that there was a dispute over some of the "facts": however, I do not >> think that is of much interest: the interest lies in the correct ruling >> if the facts are as shown. > >I presume the two dots before Wests second round pass indicate a >hesitation. On this assumption I think there are LAs to Easts first double >(ie Pass) and the hesitation also makes the double more favourable to >success. > >If South believes that Norths 3NT shows minors, then he will still bid 4D. >I also think a Pass of 4D is a logical alternative (East has little >defense to a club contract). I adjust to 4D EW-600 (six down undoubled) >for both sides. > >I dont believe the non-alert of 3NT has damaged EW and from the >description above I am unable to even determine whether it was a misbid or >alert failure. 3NT was alerted: sorry, that is what I meant by 3Na. Yes, ..P does mean a hesitation. North and South ascribed different meanings to 3NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:20:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:20:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27848 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:20:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSjmD-00015R-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:20:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:27:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Negative Dbl v/s Action Dbl In-Reply-To: <01BDF5CB.CC4B6020@nirad> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk VINAY I DESAI wrote: >Hello, Everybody; Hi Vinay. Nice to see you. >I seek your comments on the following bridge hand from the >National Masters'98 Tournament @ Mumbai,India. > >Vul: None >Dealer: South > KQx > QJ98 > QJx > xxx >xxx Axxx >AKxx xxx >Kxxxx x >K Jxxxx > JTx > xx > ATxx > AQxx > >Bidding: S W N E > 1N=11-13 2D* Dbl** P*** > P P P >2D*= Alerted by both E&W as D+H/S >Dbl**= Aletred by N to E as Negative and by S to W as Action >P***= E passed because a Negative Dbl was less likely to be converted than > an Action Dbl; If E knew that the Dbl was Action he would surely have >bid 2H for P/Correct; here, he took a chance that the Negative Dbl will >not get converted; > >Result: 2D Dbl 3 Down > >Director ruled the Score stands. >EW appealed. >AC dismissed the Appeal. >Your views ?? The appeal by East was trivial, and he deserves a relevant loss of deposit/score adjustment/whatever. The reason for his score was his bid - nothing else. There may have been misinformation but there was no damage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:20:37 +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 BAA27847 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:20:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSjmD-00015L-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:20:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:24:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When is the auction over? In-Reply-To: <199810112253.SAA01899@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 could be considered a case in which the Laws do not provide >adequate redress for West's premature lead, because of the potential of >confusing North. I wouldn't apply it because North is partly at fault, >but I could see an application, allowing an adjusted score. If you think both sides are partly at fault, how about 6S= for the defenders, and 4S+2 for declarer? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:46:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:46:24 +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 BAA27947 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:46:17 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-160.uunet.be [194.7.13.160]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26473 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:49:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3621E2FD.65A7887C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:07:41 +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: Belgian TD day (2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South, declarer in 4H, ruffs the second club trick. South leads the 5 of hearts. East, not having noticed the ruff, simultaneously leads the club 3. TD! (East has hearts) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:46:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:46:26 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27948 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:46:19 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-160.uunet.be [194.7.13.160]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26469 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:49:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3621E1FB.B4C677C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:03:23 +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: Belgian TD day (1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday the Belgian TD's held a meeting/refresher course/... A few interesting items, each in separate threads. On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the trick) On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer overruffs. Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but some others. Penalty ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 01:54:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:54:30 +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 BAA27985 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:54:18 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F0Q00E521ODNR@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:57:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA03901; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:55:34 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:55:33 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F0Q00E531ODNR@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy, For me rule 64A2 means one (1) trick if offending side mades one trick or more tricks included trick 5. (Partner offender can make trick 5.) If offending side made more then one trick after trick 4 (so trick 5 till trick 13) then if offender made at least one (1) trick with the suit in which the offender revoked then the offinding sides must tranfer one (1) extra trick to the non-offending side. If necessary then 64C can be applied. Evert. ---------------------- > At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table at about trick 9. > Declarer had led the 3 of spades. I was informed that declarer had > revoked on trick 5 when a spade was led, she had discarded a diamond and > did not win the trick. I asked them to play it out and waited while > they finished the hand. Declarer won the 3 of spades and did not take > another trick. The contract was 1 NT. I awarded the NOS two tricks as > declarer had taken several subsequent tricks and had taken a trick with > the card that could have been played on the revoke. Declarer's husband > who is a director challenged my ruling stating that after winning the > trick with the Spade 3, declarer did not take another trick and > therefore NOS was entitled to only one trick! Although we both read and > reread law 64 B2, he insisted that it still was only one trick because > she did not win a trick after playing the spade 3 and told me I was > misreading the law!. Can you help me with this explanation????? I > don't think I was wrong, was I??? Nancy > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Oct 13 02:34:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:34:18 +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 CAA28213 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:34:06 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA05082 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA05467 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810121637.MAA05467@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Evidently the change from "reasonably suggested" to "demonstrably > suggested" in L16A does not mean that a TD/AC has to demonstrate in > some way that an alternative is logical. This is a bit confused. There are two issues in any UI case: logical alternatives, and "suggested over another." "Demonstrably" deals with the latter, not the former. In other words, does a hesitation "demonstrably" suggest pulling a double? Or does the hesitation suggest leaving the double in or suggest nothing at all? > I do not accept a currently popular ACBL > interpretation, which is that if an AC can come up with an example > hand that would result in the success of an action, then that > action is a logical alternative Given the stringent ACBL definition of LA, this interpretation seems correct to me. If there is a single hand partner could have that makes an action a success, that is enough to "seriously consider" taking that action. The fact that nobody would actually take the action, after consideration, is irrelevant. You may not like this definition of LA (most of the world doesn't!), but we are obliged to live by it as long as it is in effect. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 02:44:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:44:27 +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 CAA28256 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:44:12 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA03907 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:47:02 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id QAA22348 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:46:14 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981012164705.007e0bd0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:47:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: regulations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 80 allows sponsoring organisations to publish special conditions or supplementary conditions to be used in addition to Laws, especially in instances not directly addressed by Laws (like use of screens). In order to know how far this can go, I would like to have the general opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO (sitting on the same side or the other side of the screen) " 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 Oct 13 02:45:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:45:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28270 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:45:04 +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 0zSl8z-0004g6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:48:25 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4YAVJACZ>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:42:00 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: WBFLC minutes Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:41:58 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn: > DWS wrote: > > >Note that a couple of items > >were too sensitive for general publication so they will not be > included, > > > Is it just me, or does anyone else find this odd? What could a > Commission whose remit is to define the Laws of bridge, and to provide > guidance for those bodies under its jurisdiction, put in its minutes > that was "too sensitive for general publication"? > > > ########## As a fellow member of the L&E, I of course also received > these minutes. Having read them, including the 'sensitive' bits, I > simply do not understand what all of the fuss is about. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 02:48:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:48:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28290 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:48:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA10892 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA05503 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810121651.MAA05503@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When is the auction over? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > > and North spread his dummy, which was: > > > xxx Kx QJxx Q10xx > > This is an infraction of Law 24 by North; if North thought South hadn't > passed, he should not have spread the dummy. I wonder whether we should consider L72B1 here. If North has a terrible hand for his 4S bid, he "could have known" that spreading the dummy (and barring South's contemplated slam try) might be advantageous. I am not sure the above North hand is bad enough to qualify for adjustment, but suppose it is. (Take away one of the queens if you like.) Is West's lead a mitigating factor? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 03:12:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 03:12:06 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28341 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 03:11:56 +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 NAA11233 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA05536 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810121714.NAA05536@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): > " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO > (sitting on the same side.... Up to here it seems legal. This is what computer bridge enforces. Reasonable people may disagree about the wisdom, but I don't see why any SO (and not only the national authority) may not have such a rule if it wishes. > or the other side of the screen) " But I don't understand this. Once an insufficient bid is transmitted to the other side of the screen, there is no authority to suspend the normal rules. Or do I misunderstand what this is supposed to mean? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 03:52:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 03:52:57 +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 DAA28455 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 03:52:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25241; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810121755.KAA25241@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:52:41 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > A few interesting items, each in separate threads. > > On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the > trick) > > On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer > overruffs. > > Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but some others. > > Penalty ? > Two tricks, per L64A1. The revoke trick won is given to the opposition, of course, and the "offending side" loses another trick if it takes one subsequently, as in this case. Doesn't matter if the trick is won with a club or with some other suit. The "same suit" idea goes with 64A2, not 64A1. If the overruff constituted a second revoke, that revoke, being in the same suit, is not penalized (L64B2). If, in the opinion of the TD, the transfer of two tricks because of the revoke is not sufficient to redress any damage done to the opposing side, including that caused by any unpenalized subsequent revoke in clubs, the TD assigns an adjusted score that provides compensation (L64C). Ah, I think I see the problem here. L64A1 says "won by the offending player" in regard to the revoke trick, not "won by the offending side." Dummy won the trick, not declarer, who committed the revoke. However, dummy is playing the cards as "declarer's agent" (42A3), and "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" (41D), so a card played from dummy is indeed played by declarer, which makes him/her the offending player who has won the revoke trick. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 04:12:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:12:46 +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 EAA28508 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:12:40 +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 LAA27702 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA25165; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:18:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:18:15 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810121818.LAA25165@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disqualified Contestants Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Disqualified Contestants Marvin French wrote: |Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered |to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are |caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive |bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the |event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's |decision. | |Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their |opponents? On boards in which we know they cheated to their advantage, we call the director and deal with them according to UI rules. This can be a pain in the neck, but it's unlikely that we know a lot of boards on which they were cheating or we would have stopped them earlier. This is likely to be a windfall for their recent opponents, but only if cheating was ascertained on these boards. On boards in which we do not know they were cheating, result stands. The laws do not provide for adjusted scores for no reason. Yes, they were cheating, but unless they cheated to advantage on the hand, the results are normal. On boards that they are yet to play, the contestants who do not get to play get average plus, of course. In the case of an incomplete KO match, of course we don't have to do any of this. The team containing the cheats is the contestant involved and is disqualified, so the opponents simply win the match. Same goes for an incomplete Swiss match---the contestant with the cheaters is disqualified, so their opponents get whatever the conditions of contest specify for a bye match. --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 Tue Oct 13 04:39:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:39:36 +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 EAA28616 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:39:24 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.222]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981012184206.NKEK6192@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:42:06 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:59:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdf60a$1c0a8800$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 Herman De Wael >On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the >trick) > >On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer >overruffs. On this over ruff does declarer still have clubs? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 04:43:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:43:30 +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 EAA28638 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:43:20 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.222]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981012184621.NMQY6192@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:46:21 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:43:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdf610$44adea80$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 From: Marvin L. French >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes >the >> trick) >> >> On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and >declarer >> overruffs. >> >> Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but some others. >> >> Penalty ? snip >Two tricks, per L64A1. The revoke trick won is given to the >opposition, of course, and the "offending side" loses another trick >if it takes one subsequently, as in this case. Doesn't matter if >the trick is won with a club or with some other suit. The "same >suit" idea goes with 64A2, not 64A1. >Ah, I think I see the problem here. L64A1 says "won by the >offending player" in regard to the revoke trick, not "won by the >offending side." Dummy won the trick, not declarer, who committed >the revoke. However, dummy is playing the cards as "declarer's >agent" (42A3), and "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" >(41D), so a card played from dummy is indeed played by declarer, >which makes him/her the offending player who has won the revoke >trick. NO, NO, NO - Declarer is not dummy, dummy is not declarer. Tell me this interpretation doesn't exist here! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 04:48:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:48:09 +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 EAA28666 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:48:00 +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 TAA10953 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:51:26 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09517; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:50:44 +0100 Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id SAA10133; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:48:26 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 12 Oct 98 18:47:00 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01x4 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 12 Oct 98 18:35:29 +0100 X400-Received: by mta POL0103 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 12 Oct 98 19:49:01 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 12 Oct 98 19:49:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 98 19:49:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G5002191546200000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <9945.627136584@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: RE:Belgian TD day (1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael: >Yesterday the Belgian TD's held a meeting/refresher course/... >A few interesting items, each in separate threads. >On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the >trick). On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and >declarer overruffs. Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but >some others. Penalty ? One trick, unfortunately (?), as Laws 64.A.2. and 64.B.2. leaves no room for other interpretation. May be there were additional circumstances to allow the TD use of L 64.C. Janek Romanski ___________________________________________________________________ Tel:+48-22-6310566 Fax:+48-22-6320979 Mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk X.400: S:Romanski G:Jan I:F O:ICL OU1:POL0103 P:ICL A:GOLD 400 C:PL From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 05:19:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:19:36 +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 FAA28727 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:19:30 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07227; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810121922.MAA07227@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:18:38 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote; > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Evidently the change from "reasonably suggested" to "demonstrably > > suggested" in L16A does not mean that a TD/AC has to demonstrate in > > some way that an alternative is logical. > > This is a bit confused. There are two issues in any UI case: logical > alternatives, and "suggested over another." "Demonstrably" deals with > the latter, not the former. > In other words, does a hesitation > "demonstrably" suggest pulling a double? Or does the hesitation > suggest leaving the double in or suggest nothing at all? Picky, picky. Perhaps I didn't put it correctly, but my intended point remains the same. I'll reword it to: (referring to current ACBL practice and the 1997 version of L16) "Evidently the change....does not mean that a TD/AC has to demonstrate in some way that an action suggested by the UI is an LA." Better? If a pair's methods require the pull of a business double with certain well-defined hands, and passing is therefore not an LA, then UI cannot suggest otherwise, and a TD/AC cannot "demonstrate" that it does. Reason (1987) yes, demonstrate (1997) no. > > I do not accept a currently popular ACBL > > interpretation, which is that if an AC can come up with an example > > hand that would result in the success of an action, then that > > action is a logical alternative > > Given the stringent ACBL definition of LA, this interpretation seems > correct to me. If there is a single hand partner could have that makes > an action a success, that is enough to "seriously consider" taking that > action. The fact that nobody would actually take the action, after > consideration, is irrelevant. It is the TD/AC who is dreaming up the hands, not the person(s) intended by the definition (one's peers). Besides, thinking of a hand that partner could hold is not the same as "seriously considering" acting on that possbility. I (and my peers) might consider whether partner might have a certain holding, then reject the possibility as too unlikely to seriously consider acting on it, or as not justification for violating a firm partnership agreement. Example: I open 1S with a weak 5-5 in the majors, void in clubs, and LHO bids 2C, doubled very slowly by partner. Our agreement is that I *must* bid 2H. Even though the UI might suggest that he has a poor club holding for the double, bidding does not constitute taking a forbidden LA, because there is no LA. I might have wondered whether he had a trump stack if the double had come from behind a screen, but that does not make passing an LA. An AC would tell me (as has happened) that partner could have five clubs KQJ98 and therefore passing is a logical alternative to bidding, which was suggested by the UI. Reasoning that doesn't demonstrate it. > You may not like this definition of LA (most of the world doesn't!), > but we are obliged to live by it as long as it is in effect. Well, we disagree as to the intent of the definition ("an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum"). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 05:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:55:49 +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 FAA28822 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:55:43 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA19243; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:58:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-08.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.40) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019201; Mon Oct 12 14:58:29 1998 Received: by har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF5F8.BABEC180@har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:55:27 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF5F8.BABEC180@har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'David Burn'" Subject: RE: WBFLC minutes Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:48:53 -0400 Encoding: 32 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My sentiment exactly. Are we referring to C&E matters affecting (a) specific individual(s)? Are we referring to some personnel matter? Otherwise it is even more disturbing on this side of the pond to see the potential for coverup. Surely Grattan is not in training to become a Presidential aide? :-)). (I trust his and David S's circumspection have a genuine basis, but am at a loss for what it might be.) Has bridge law become so politicised as to overrule open covenants openly arrived at? Craig ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 6:42 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBFLC minutes DWS wrote: >Note that a couple of items >were too sensitive for general publication so they will not be included, Is it just me, or does anyone else find this odd? What could a Commission whose remit is to define the Laws of bridge, and to provide guidance for those bodies under its jurisdiction, put in its minutes that was "too sensitive for general publication"? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 06:02:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:02:51 +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 GAA28857 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:02:46 +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, 12 Oct 1998 13:06:05 -0700 Message-ID: <362261D1.1C673651@home.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:08:49 -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: UI Ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > This looks interesting to me: > > A7 Dlr: W > A3 Vul: N/S > J7 > KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S > KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P > KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D > KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P > 8x P 5C X AP > Q542 > 8x > > This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South > was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the > minors. a) E's 1st X disallowed. Pass was LA and pard's slow pass suggested X over pass. E's 2nd X is more borderline. Without the alert I'd tend not to allow it, but the alert makes it more likely that we can beat both 4D and 5C (contrary to another poster's opinion, I think it's clear that 3NT* can only show a sidesuit in diamonds) even when pard is minimum. Pass might still be a LA though. b) N's 5C disallowed. S's alert of 3NT is UI to N. If S prefers 4D over 3NTX/4C when 3NT is "natural", why on earth should N prefer 5C (i.e. opposite say xxx xx QT9xxxx x)? S would've bid 4D even after 3NT (P), so E's 1st X didn't cause damage. Thereafter it gets trickier. Instinctively I'd like to consider both sides as "OS" for the purposes of an adjusted score, thus giving NS -1700 in 4DX and EW +600 in 4D, although I'd accept if table-result (+1100) stands for EW. (This might be a case where L12C3 could be applied to EW). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 06:14:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:14:59 +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 GAA28890 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:14:53 +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, 12 Oct 1998 13:18:24 -0700 Message-ID: <362264B3.220A8836@home.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:21:07 -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: Negative Dbl v/s Action Dbl References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The reason for his score was his bid - nothing else. There may have > been misinformation but there was no damage. > And even if we want to be generous to EW, what do we adjust to? 2HX down 3 ?! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 06:57:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:57:30 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29031 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:57:13 +1000 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:59:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from blm9-177.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.68.177] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:59:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3622F18A.5D3@wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:22:02 -0700 From: Claude DADOUN Reply-To: bbffb@wanadoo.fr Organization: FFB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 [fr] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: (pas d'objet) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk subscript bridge-laws From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 07:26:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:26:28 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29124 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:26:19 +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 RAA13156 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA05748 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:29:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810122129.RAA05748@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > "Evidently the change....does not mean that a TD/AC has to > demonstrate in some way that an action suggested by the UI is an > LA." This is correct. "Demonstrably" has nothing whatever to do with the question of LA. How could an action be "demonstrated" to be an LA? > If a pair's methods require the pull of a business double with > certain well-defined hands, and passing is therefore not an LA, > then UI cannot suggest otherwise, and a TD/AC cannot "demonstrate" > that it does. Reason (1987) yes, demonstrate (1997) no. I don't get it. If your methods unambiguously forbid passing, then pass is not a LA for you. What's the problem? This has nothing to do with "demonstrably ... suggested over another." You may be thinking of the question of what evidence is needed to persuade the TD/AC that your methods are as you say. That's unclear, but the usual standard of "preponderance of the evidence" is in effect. > Besides, thinking of a > hand that partner could hold is not the same as "seriously > considering" acting on that possbility. I (and my peers) might > consider whether partner might have a certain holding, then reject > the possibility as too unlikely to seriously consider acting on it, OK, fair enough. "Could hold" is too vague. (Some of my partners _could_ hold almost anything for their bidding, regardless of any agreements!) But make the phrase something like "could within reason hold," and I'll stand by it. Remember, this is only within the ACBL, where the definition of LA is very strict. > or as not justification for violating a firm partnership agreement. Violating a partnership agreement should not be considered a LA unless something very strange -- outside the normal course of bidding -- has happened. For example (as discussed in an unrelated thread on RGB), an opponent exposes a bunch of cards, and you see that following your agreement would be a bad idea. > Example: I open 1S with a weak 5-5 in the majors, void in clubs, > and LHO bids 2C, doubled very slowly by partner. Our agreement is > that I *must* bid 2H. If you have such an agreement, passing isn't a LA for you. But if you want to avoid a score adjustment, you have to have some evidence that your agreement is as you say. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 07:27:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:27:43 +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 HAA29138 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:27:38 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id RAA28455; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:30:05 -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-1998Oct12.170809.1189.274879; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:31:21 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws'), mit-dlbc-discuss@mit.edu ('mit-dlbc-discuss@mit.edu') Cc: rew@ma.ultranet.com ('rew@ma.ultranet.com') Message-ID: <1998Oct12.170809.1189.274879@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: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:31:21 -0400 Subject: Question on psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Odds little question about proprieties. Most of the Zonal Organizations have adopted some pretty strict regulations about pysches. The ACBL position on this matter is certainly well known on this mailing list. After some careful thought on this entire topic, I've concluded that the best strategy for a pair to follow might be to save your psyches for a rainy day. Specifically, I tend to play a fairly active bidding style that often lends itself to psyching. Typically, at least once a session partner and I will be dealt a board where a psyche almost seems mandatory. The problem of course, is that psyching is at the very least frowned about by the powers that be. Getting a reputation as a partnership that has pysched in the past is a very bad thing if you expect to get a favorable committee ruling. Hence, optimally psyches should be saved for important occasions. Players should only unleash the serious mojo during a close team match or when you need to cement that last top to win a major event. Of course, some people might construe such a logical process as constituting an agreement about when to psyche, rendering the entire exercise somewhat academic. Question to the mailing list. Does such an agreement simple represent common sense or does it constitute an impropriety? Is an agreement not to ever psyche improper? Richard (For extra credit, link the argument above to sportsman like dumping) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 07:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:40:05 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29165 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:39:55 +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 RAA14976 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA05772 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:43:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810122143.RAA05772@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: conventions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [changing the thread name again.] > From: "Marvin L. French" > Whether someone bids diamonds or clubs > first with 4-4 spades or clubs first with 5-5, a longer suit before > a shorter suit, or a shorter suit before a longer suit, may be a > matter of partnership understanding, I would have said _is_ a matter of partnership understanding. Practices vary widely from region to region and from partnership to partnership. > but none of those practices constitutes a convention. This is the point under discussion. Either all of them do (which is what the written definition says) or none of them does (which is what the statement from Lille seems to say). Either position seems defensible to me, absent more information. Can Grattan or anyone else confirm that the intention of the Lille statement was to say that indeed none of the agreements about suit order constitutes a convention? > Alertable perhaps, when it's a practice > expected by partner and not expected by the opposition Yes, we would do well to remember that alerting regulations, in general, have nothing to do with whether something is a convention. (It may matter in certain jurisdictions.) > For everyone's amusement, here's the definition in the 1963 Laws: > > "Any call or play which, by agreement or understanding between > partners, serves to convey a meaning other than would be attributed > to it by the opponents in the absence of an explanation." Heh! Thanks. I checked and found the "1987" definition came into effect with the 1975 Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 09:11:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:11:10 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29296 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:11:05 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA22317 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:14:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:13:39 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) In-Reply-To: <199810121755.KAA25241@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > A few interesting items, each in separate threads. > > > > On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes > the > > trick) > > > > On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and > declarer > > overruffs. > > > > Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but some others. > > > > Penalty ? > > > Two tricks, per L64A1. The revoke trick won is given to the > opposition, of course, and the "offending side" loses another trick > if it takes one subsequently, as in this case. Doesn't matter if > the trick is won with a club or with some other suit. The "same > suit" idea goes with 64A2, not 64A1. > > If the overruff constituted a second revoke, that revoke, being in > the same suit, is not penalized (L64B2). > > If, in the opinion of the TD, the transfer of two tricks because of > the revoke is not sufficient to redress any damage done to the > opposing side, including that caused by any unpenalized subsequent > revoke in clubs, the TD assigns an adjusted score that provides > compensation (L64C). > > Ah, I think I see the problem here. L64A1 says "won by the > offending player" in regard to the revoke trick, not "won by the > offending side." Dummy won the trick, not declarer, who committed > the revoke. However, dummy is playing the cards as "declarer's > agent" (42A3), and "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" > (41D), so a card played from dummy is indeed played by declarer, > which makes him/her the offending player who has won the revoke > trick. Sorry Marv, but you are wrong about your last statement. With regards to the revoke law Declarer and Dummy are separate entities. Have a look at Grattan's 1992 tome "Commentary on the Laws of...." 64.10 "(i) If declarer rovokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." The interesting part of this situation is that although declarer did not win the trick assocoiated with the first revoke, he did win the trick (by ruffing) when he revoked a second time. L64A2 says only one trick is transferred regarding the first revoke. L64B2 says there is no penalty associated with the second revoke. This seems slightly inconsistent since if declarer had ruffed when revoking the first time and discarded when revoking the second time, it would have cost him two tricks. I don't think it is really a problem since the revoke law is pretty arbitary anyway and the NOs are always protected via L64C from any real damage. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 09:26:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:26:15 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29329 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:26:10 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA29296 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:29:45 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:29:44 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: regulations In-Reply-To: <199810121714.NAA05536@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > > opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): > > " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO > > (sitting on the same side.... > > Up to here it seems legal. This is what computer bridge enforces. > Reasonable people may disagree about the wisdom, but I don't see why > any SO (and not only the national authority) may not have such a rule > if it wishes. > > > or the other side of the screen) " > > But I don't understand this. Once an insufficient bid is transmitted > to the other side of the screen, there is no authority to suspend the > normal rules. Or do I misunderstand what this is supposed to mean? Which side legally (or illegally) pushed the bidding tray under the screen may have a bearing on this situation. If East makes an insufficient bid and North then transmits this infraction to the other side of the screen, under certain SOs regulations both sides may be deemed to be at fault. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 09:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:32:28 +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 JAA29346 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:32:22 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSrVB-0000CB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:35:46 +0000 Message-ID: <+5CWMXAX6jI2EwUc@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:38:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Funny rulings (was Re: Statistics) In-Reply-To: <199810120426.VAA16942@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810120426.VAA16942@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >The really automatic penalty came a long time ago, back to the days >of auction bridge and early contract bridge: snip my 1914 laws give 3 tricks. Cheers John ( ... and anyone who suggests I still use them ...) -- 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 Oct 13 09:54:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:54:39 +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 JAA29382 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:54:34 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.03 #1) id 0zSrqm-0001Gf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:58:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:07:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) In-Reply-To: <01bdf610$44adea80$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: >NO, NO, NO - Declarer is not dummy, dummy is not declarer. Tell me this >interpretation doesn't exist here! I am not quite sure where "here" is, but no, declarer is not dummy. Richard F Beye wrote: >Herman De Wael >>On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the >>trick) >> >>On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer >>overruffs. >On this over ruff does declarer still have clubs? Very clever. I was originally duped into thinking "One trick, WTP?" but now I see. Well, the answer to the problem is one trick, despite the spirit of the law requiring two if declarer had clubs left at that time. I imagine some of you do not know what I am talking about, so here is the explanation: If declarer revokes on a club lead from dummy but wins the trick in dummy, then L64A1 does not apply because declarer did not win the trick in hand. L64A2 does apply: since declarer won no later club trick in hand it is a one trick revoke. What about the second revoke? Well, L64B2 says that there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same suit by the same player, so there is your answer: a one trick revoke. So what is the difficulty? If the first revoke had been the club ruffed in declarer's hand then it would have been a two-trick revoke, because L64A1 would have applied: declarer won the revoke trick himself. The spirit of the Law makes this a two-trick revoke - but the letter of the Law does not. Very clever, Herman, and well done Rick for asking the vital question: I nearly fell for this one and saw no problem in it! Of course L64C will give extra tricks if equity is not satisfied. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 10:03:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:27 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29430 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:23 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA14257 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:06:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:06:57 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) In-Reply-To: <3621E2FD.65A7887C@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > South, declarer in 4H, ruffs the second club trick. > > South leads the 5 of hearts. > > East, not having noticed the ruff, simultaneously leads the club 3. > > TD! > > (East has hearts) The easy part is that East's lead is deemed to be subsequent to South's (L58A). I don't believe that L57A applies since East has not yet played to the current trick, let alone led to the next one. I will treat the club 3 as a simple defender's LOOT and deem it a penalty card. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 10:15:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:15:02 +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 KAA29471 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:14:56 +1000 Received: from prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02762 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810130018.UAA19425@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199810121651.MAA05503@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:51:15 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: When is the auction over? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Grabiner >> > and North spread his dummy, which was: >> > xxx Kx QJxx Q10xx >> This is an infraction of Law 24 by North; if North thought South hadn't >> passed, he should not have spread the dummy. > I wonder whether we should consider L72B1 here. If North has a > terrible hand for his 4S bid, he "could have known" that spreading the > dummy (and barring South's contemplated slam try) might be > advantageous. > I am not sure the above North hand is bad enough to qualify for > adjustment, but suppose it is. (Take away one of the queens if you > like.) Is West's lead a mitigating factor? I think West's lead is a mitigating factor; North should not be penalized for a potentially deliberate infraction when he was likely to have been misled by an opponent's infraction. That is, I wouldn't penalize North in this situation even if he had Kxx xx QJxx xxxx and had bid 4S only because he had a small heart in with his diamonds. With no infraction by West, I would invoke Law 72B1 and adjust to 5S or 6S. -- 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 Oct 13 13:29:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:29:10 +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 NAA29725 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:29:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11260; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810130332.UAA11260@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:30:08 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Example: I open 1S with a weak 5-5 in the majors, void in clubs, > > and LHO bids 2C, doubled very slowly by partner. Our agreement is > > that I *must* bid 2H. > > If you have such an agreement, passing isn't a LA for you. But if you > want to avoid a score adjustment, you have to have some evidence that > your agreement is as you say. Which is why I urge everyone to have their system notes available, at least those that include something not everyone plays. Be sure to whip them out when the TD rules against you, as the AC skeptics might think you wrote them after the fact. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 15:28:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:28:06 +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 PAA29942 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:27:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA28547 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810130530.WAA28547@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:27:54 -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 Laurie Kelso wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > Ah, I think I see the problem here. L64A1 says "won by the > > offending player" in regard to the revoke trick, not "won by the > > offending side." Dummy won the trick, not declarer, who committed > > the revoke. However, dummy is playing the cards as "declarer's > > agent" (42A3), and "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" > > (41D), so a card played from dummy is indeed played by declarer, > > which makes him/her the offending player who has won the revoke > > trick. > > Sorry Marv, but you are wrong about your last statement. With regards to > the revoke law Declarer and Dummy are separate entities. Have a look at > Grattan's 1992 tome "Commentary on the Laws of...." > > 64.10 > > "(i) If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not > deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." > Grattan is an interpreter of the laws, and a good one, but his opinions are merely opinions. Only the WBF LC's published interpretations are official. L41D says that declarer plays both hands, so if he wins a revoke trick by play from either hand, then he is the offending player who has won a trick. Dummy does not play a card; declarer plays a card from dummy (L45B, 46B1). Likewise, dummy does not win a trick; declarer wins a trick in dummy. Why should 64A1 be an exception? The 1975 Laws had "won by the offending side" in 64A1, which was changed to "won by the offending player" in the 1987 Laws. I had believed that this change was intended to affect the defenders only, not declarer. How can dummy be "an offending player" when he/she is only acting as declarer's agent? And that is my opinion. I accept that Grattan, as vice-chairman of the WBF LC when the 1987 laws were written, probably was privy to discussions involving the change, and therefore probably knows for sure what was intended. However, if declarer and dummy were to be separated for the purpose of applying the new (1987) 64A1, the lawmakers could have written "won by the offending hand." If that was indeed the intent, I hereby suggest this change in 64A1 for 2003 and 2007. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 18:02:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:02:42 +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 SAA00331 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:02:31 +1000 Received: from lizard (user-38ld47m.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.144.246]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA21167 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> X-Sender: jaycue@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:14:19 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jim Guida Subject: The "C" word Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I have cats, two of them, Vivian, 14, Olivia, 9, but that's not the "C" word I was talking about. I was trained as a director that accusations of "cheating" will not be tolerated at any club or tournament and I have advised all my students accordingly. Proper procedure is to wait until the end of the round, speak to the director privately and describe the occurrence that "appeared to be" unethical behavior. Is this correct? Not long ago, I was playing in a Swiss Teams Regional event against a well-publicized, female world champion. She was declaring five diamonds doubled which turned out to be a phantom sac. My partner had led the Ace of Hearts at trick one and then switched. When I outshowed to the next heart trick, said champion blurted, "We ALL knew your heart was stiff by the way you played the card!" (and then attempted to imitate the way the card was played). I muttered quietly, "You should know better" as I called the Director. As the Director was approaching, I pointed out that my partner, for one, did not know that my heart was stiff, because he switched and had he continued hearts we would get the contract one more. Upon explaining the above incident to the Director, fully expecting him to take said world champion aside and explain to her guidelines of courtesy and decorum, instead he looked me square in the eyes and said, "Well, did you?". I admitted that I may have hitched with my singleton while thinking about the overall defense, this is IMPS after all, but I played my card "mechanically" as I play all my cards. He then non-ruled, let the result stand and wandered away in boredom. Was this Director's action appropriate? When accused of unethical behavior, should a player be confronted by the Director as well as the opponent? Where in the Laws does it forbid daydreaming, making a mistake or having a muscle spasm? As a Director, when I encounter this type of situation, I explain that other circumstances beyond those perceived MAY have caused the action construed as UB and benefit of doubt must be given. When convictions are strong, recorder forms are made available. I will not permit anybody's personal integrity to be compromised at a Bridge event. Am I correct? I can't find it in the lawbook. Lot's of c-words here, cats, cheating, club, correct, champion, card, call, continue, courtesy, confront, circumstance, cause, conviction, compromise and correct. Which can I be referring to? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 19:09:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:09:56 +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 TAA00407 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:09:46 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03564 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:12:49 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id JAA03569 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:11:59 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981013091250.007db700@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:12:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: regulations In-Reply-To: <199810121714.NAA05536@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:14 12/10/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >> opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): >> " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO >> (sitting on the same side.... > >Up to here it seems legal. This is what computer bridge enforces. >Reasonable people may disagree about the wisdom, but I don't see why >any SO (and not only the national authority) may not have such a rule >if it wishes. > >> or the other side of the screen) " > >But I don't understand this. Once an insufficient bid is transmitted >to the other side of the screen, there is no authority to suspend the >normal rules. Or do I misunderstand what this is supposed to mean? > > This is the regulation (S and W on the same side of screen): a) after West's bid, South is the player who must transmit the bids. b) if West's bid is insufficient and South transmits it to the other side, both sides are deemed to be Offending Sides. c) when, on the other side of screen, N or E draws attention to the irregularity, North has not the option of accepting the insufficient bid, the bids come back to the initial side of screen, West's insufficient bid is retracted and all retracted bids are UI for both sides. d) in the case West had (incorrectly) transmitted the bids after his insufficient bid, only EW are OS. e) if North bids without drawing attention to the IB, he is deemed to be OS (but his side was already, due to South' transmitting bids!) My general question was: is there contradiction between? - L80: no conflict between Laws and SO's regulations - L27: any insufficient bid may be accepted.... - regulation: with screens, an insufficient bid may not be accepted 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 Oct 13 21:36:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:36:01 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00682 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:35:55 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-251.uunet.be [194.7.13.251]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10368 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:39:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362342A7.272A7D27@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:08:07 +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: Re: Belgian TD day (1) References: <01bdf60a$1c0a8800$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > > Herman De Wael > > >On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the > >trick) > > > >On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer > >overruffs. > > On this over ruff does declarer still have clubs? Yes indeed, sorry, should have been clearer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 21:35:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:35:58 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00678 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:35:52 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-251.uunet.be [194.7.13.251]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10355; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:39:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362341A4.A7AF9EF9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:03:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Claude DADOUN Subject: Re: (pas d'objet) References: <3622F18A.5D3@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN wrote: > > subscript bridge-laws I hope Marcus has been able to allow Claude into our fould. May I present him to our list : Claude is the senior French TD, and a regular in EBL and WBF organisations, where he is usually in charge of the calculation. No doubt he will have reasons to write to me off-list, and he can do so in French. J'espere que tu recois deja cela deux fois, Claude ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 13 22:50:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:50:23 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00865 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:50:15 +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 JAA03737 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:09:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013085352.00711338@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:53:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is it Authorized Information??? In-Reply-To: <05f701bdf4cf$f27c9360$649482d1@bickford> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:30 AM 10/11/98 -0400, Bill wrote: >An opponent made an insufficient bid, and I took an inference based on my >partner's choice of the options he had available. Later I wondered if I >have the right to take such an inference, and discussed it with the >directors. They were split as to whether or not it was proper for me to >take inferences in this situation. The point was also raised as to whether >or not my partner and I had any explicit agreements in this situation and >the propriety of such an agreement; we did not, but since we have now >discussed it we probably now have an implicit agreement. > >What is the feeling of this forum? This area is a black hole in ACBL regulations, which I've been bitching about for years. In the initial instance, since you had no partnership agreement of any kind, you are entitled to take any inferences you choose. However, now that the subject has come up, (separate) ACBL regulations make it quite clear that: (a) You now have an implicit partnership agreement regarding actions over insufficient bids, and (b) *Any* partnership agreement of any kind regarding actions over insufficient bids is illegal. This means that if another opponent makes an insufficient bid against this particular partnership, *you* are automatically in violation of the rules. I can see only two clearly legal ways out of this bind: abandon the partnership forever, or subject yourself and your partner to experimental brain surgery which will selectively erase any memory of your implicit agreement. If the ACBL has any better idea on how you can now conform to their stated regulations, they haven't shared it with us. [BLML regulars: Skip the following anecdote; you've seen it before...] One evening, while sitting around in my den at home with a regular partner (J. Merrill) discussing bidding theory in general, the conversation wandered onto the subject of inferences about partner's actions over insufficient bids. We discussed the differences in meaning among, after, say, 1S-1H-?, (a) accept, bid 1S, (b) accept, bid 2S, and (c) refuse to accept, then bid 2S over the expected 2H correction. Some weeks later, an opponent made an insufficient bid, and J. did something. I alerted, and essentially recounted the discussion we had had, telling them what I expected for partner's action. They called the TD, and we wound up in front of an AC. I argued that the fact was that we had this discussion and couldn't "unhave" it, thus my only choices were to inform the opponents of what had been said, or keep silent; I felt it was ethically proper to be as forthcoming as I could, and therefore spoke up. The committee awarded us A- on the board. They told us that our agreement was illegal, and ordered us in no uncertain terms to "never to do it again". When I asked them exactly *what* it was that we were never to do again, they told me that they had made their ruling and weren't going to elaborate on it; it was time to go home. 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 Oct 13 22:54:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:54:40 +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 WAA00889 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:54:35 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.38]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981013125739.EMUS16714@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:57:39 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: regulations Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:55:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdf6a8$b4ae43a0$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: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >I would like to have the general >opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): > " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO >(sitting on the same side or the other side of the screen) " General Opinion: This is a good, common sense regulation allowed by Law 80E if applied to screenmates only. I don't think that you can apply it to LHO on the other side of the screen. I have never seen an insufficient bid passed. I have seen RHO screenmate prevent an insufficient bid from being passed. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 00:38:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:38:48 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03441 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:38:42 +1000 Received: from [207.226.101.51] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08723; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:42:44 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:38:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: The "C" word Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:14 -0400 10/13/98, Jim Guida wrote: >I was trained as a director that accusations of "cheating" will not be >tolerated at any club or tournament and I have advised all my students >accordingly. Proper procedure is to wait until the end of the round, speak >to the director privately and describe the occurrence that "appeared to be" >unethical behavior. >Is this correct? (Note: this question may contain information only pertinent to the ACBL. My apologies to the subscribers of other continents.) This is particularly timely for me. Recently during a KO match at a local Regional, sometime around the 9th board of the second half my LHO opened 2NT without using the "Stop Card". I was a bit aghast as my partner asked my RHO "Is there any significance to the bid when he doesn't use the Stop Card?" Of course RHO answered "No" and the matter was dropped there. I confronted my partner about it after the match. Actually, he came to me and told me he had noticed me picking up my jaw from the floor after his question. He explained that he had noticed LHO using the Stop Card on 2 earlier preemptive bids, so he didn't seem to be following ACBL rules for its use. The real question of mine is this: What should my partner have really done? I don't think my partner thought this pair was truly being unethical, they were much better than we were (as in nationally ranked) and were pretty far ahead in the match. Should he have summoned the TD immediately? Should he have filled out a recorder's form later? I suspect the pragmatic thing to do would have been to just let it go. Peter P.S. This is my second posting to BLML. David S. welcomed me nicely after the first but failed to ask if I have cats. My answer, "having none". From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 01:05:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:05:59 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03515 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:05:50 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07717 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199810131503.KAA07717@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Question on psyches To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > favorable committee ruling. Hence, optimally psyches should be saved for > important occasions. Players should only unleash the serious mojo during > a close team match or when you need to cement that last top to win a > major event. > > Of course, some people might construe such a logical process as > constituting an agreement about when to psyche, rendering the entire > exercise somewhat academic. Question to the mailing list. > > Does such an agreement simple represent common sense or does it > constitute an impropriety? Neither. It is not simple common sense, because the vast majority of players would never have seen it, and there are intelligent people who have quite different view on it. [Some think psyches should be reserved for when you are way _behind_ and need big swings, others think they are better employed against good pairs, or bad pairs, or whatever.] OTOH, it is not an impropriety in and of itself. I _do_ think it consitutes a partnership agreement regarding when to psyche, and therefore should be revealed to opponents. This is especially true if, as you suggest, you psyche very often under the 'right' circumstances but never under the 'wrong' ones. > Is an agreement not to ever psyche improper? Why would it be? I never psyche [my partner has enough trouble figuring out my bidding without having to worry about that], and I'm sure my usual partner knows that by now. 'Frequency of psyches' was considered a legitimate section to place on convention cards, with 'never' as one of the options. > Richard > > (For extra credit, link the argument above to sportsman like dumping) I'm waiting for the time when I'll be able to dump. :) -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 01:58:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:58:39 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03593 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:58:29 +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 RAA18389 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:01:54 +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 RAA15804 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:01:49 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16183 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:01:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:01:48 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199810131601.RAA16183@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim worte: > I was trained as a director that accusations of "cheating" will not be > tolerated at any club or tournament and I have advised all my students > accordingly. Proper procedure is to wait until the end of the round, speak > to the director privately and describe the occurrence that "appeared to be" > unethical behavior. > Is this correct? > Not long ago, I was playing in a Swiss Teams Regional event against a > well-publicized, female world champion. She was declaring five diamonds > doubled which turned out to be a phantom sac. My partner had led the Ace > of Hearts at trick one and then switched. When I outshowed to the next > heart trick, said champion blurted, "We ALL knew your heart was stiff by > the way you played the card!" (and then attempted to imitate the way the > card was played). I muttered quietly, "You should know better" as I called > the Director. As the Director was approaching, I pointed out that my > partner, for one, did not know that my heart was stiff, because he switched > and had he continued hearts we would get the contract one more. > Upon explaining the above incident to the Director, fully expecting him to > take said world champion aside and explain to her guidelines of courtesy > and decorum, instead he looked me square in the eyes and said, "Well, did > you?". ... The question does not explicitly accuse you of cheating. The player may have intended to imply that you did it deliberately (which would be cheating), but the question allows for the hitch to be inadvertent. I think the question was asked like that to try and annoy and embarrass you, and you should have made that clear to the TD and asked him to rule and L74A2. [ Clearly ZT regulations, if you have them, may define the appropriate penalty.] The player might also have been trying to show off to partner: "Hey, look! They try to coffee-house us but I can read their hitches better than they can." But what is the player to do if you did it deliberately, or thought you might have done it deliberately. Clearly she should not call you a cheat on the evidence of one hand, but she will want to call attention while the matter is fresh in everyone's mind. I think she should call attention when the hitch happens (L16A1 - but ACBL regulation may prohibit this) or at the end of the hand. Calling attention to it in the middle of the hand (when partner had not acted on what she claimed was suggested by the hitch) was wrong, and clearly an attempt to put you off. Peter wrote > This is particularly timely for me. Recently during a KO match at a local > Regional, sometime around the 9th board of the second half my LHO opened > 2NT without using the "Stop Card". I was a bit aghast as my partner asked > my RHO "Is there any significance to the bid when he doesn't use the Stop > Card?" Of course RHO answered "No" and the matter was dropped there. > > I confronted my partner about it after the match. Actually, he came to me > and told me he had noticed me picking up my jaw from the floor after his > question. He explained that he had noticed LHO using the Stop Card on 2 > earlier preemptive bids, so he didn't seem to be following ACBL rules for > its use. > > The real question of mine is this: What should my partner have really > done? I don't think my partner thought this pair was truly being > unethical, they were much better than we were (as in nationally ranked) and > were pretty far ahead in the match. Should he have summoned the TD > immediately? Should he have filled out a recorder's form later? I suspect > the pragmatic thing to do would have been to just let it go. I think your partner should say: "I would like you to follow the stop procedure: although it hasn't caused a problem on this hand, it might in future." If they forget the procedure again, call the director. Some of the time opponents will take offence (especially if he starts with "I'm not calling the director, BUT ...") and the TD may be called anyway. But at least he would have tried to raise the issue without making too much fuss. My story, along the lines of: "Is there any significance to the bid when he doesn't use the Stop Card?" I was observing a player (who I had already marked as a pr*t), when he asked an opponent "What does it show when your partner bids 2D slowly?". My jaw hit the floor and I waited for opponents to scream. But they had already worked out that he was a pr*t and did not feel insulted. I had to talk to the table at the end of the hand anyway and I said (as best I could without using the C-word) that some players might take offence from such as question. 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 Oct 14 02:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:21:22 +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 CAA03798 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:21:17 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16535; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810131623.JAA16535@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Claude DADOUN" Subject: Re: (pas d'objet) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:21:04 -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 Welcome to Claude DADOUN, senior French TD. Maybe Claude will be kind enough to give his thoughts about the definition of "convention" in the French version of the Laws, especially whether he believes that the translation was correct. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 03:44:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:44:39 +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 DAA04036 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:44:31 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h19.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id VAA19876; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:47:46 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <36242D13.1052@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:48:19 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Haglich CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Peter Haglich wrote: > P.S. This is my second posting to BLML. David S. welcomed me nicely after > the first but failed to ask if I have cats. My answer, "having none". That's why you were not asked:)) Regards Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 03:52:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:52:59 +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 DAA04067 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:52:53 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zT8gL-00048t-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:56:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:53:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: regulations In-Reply-To: <01bdf6a8$b4ae43a0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bdf6a8$b4ae43a0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net>, Richard F Beye writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > > >>I would like to have the general >>opinion about this regulation (if deceided by a national authority): >> " Playing with screens, an insufficient bid may never be accepted by LHO >>(sitting on the same side or the other side of the screen) " > > >General Opinion: This is a good, common sense regulation allowed by Law 80E >if applied to screenmates only. I don't think that you can apply it to LHO >on the other side of the screen. > >I have never seen an insufficient bid passed. I have seen RHO screenmate >prevent an insufficient bid from being passed. > > I don't see why I cannot condone an insufficient bid - it may be in my interest to do so. ... and passing it may be a reasonable course of action. The Laws permit me to do so, the screen regulations are regulations and IMO cannot supercede the Laws. 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 Oct 14 04:18:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:18:25 +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 EAA04180 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:18:19 +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 OAA27525 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810131821.OAA07145@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199810130530.WAA28547@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > The 1975 Laws had "won by the offending side" in 64A1, which was > changed to "won by the offending player" in the 1987 Laws. I had > believed that this change was intended to affect the defenders > only, not declarer. How can dummy be "an offending player" when > he/she is only acting as declarer's agent? Elsewhere in the Laws, it is clear that "player" includes dummy. Law 44 would make no sense if dummy and declarer are the same "player"; for example, Law 44G would allow declarer to lead from his own hand after winning a trick in dummy. Law 45A explicitly says, "Each player except dummy..." The definitions do not define "player", but they do define "hand". A hand is a collection of cards, which does not win a trick; a player wins a trick with a card from his hand. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 05:19:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:19:19 +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 FAA04415 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:19:12 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09977 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810131922.MAA09977@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL National ACs Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:20:13 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Chicago BoD: Item 982-04: Appeals Procedures at NABCs Management will prepare a proposed guideline for consideration for appeals at NABCs which follow the recommendations set forth in the report of the Committee for the Future of Bridge. The guidelines will contain: 1.Procedures for choosing tournament directors to serve on committees - will it be done by those TDs running the particular event in which the appeal occurs or by a generic committee established by the DIC, etc? 2.Cost for this procedure including a fully itemized comparison of the total cost of all NABC Appeals functions in Spring 1998 to what the cost would be if TDs handled appeals (and the Recorder and Appeals Administrator were ACBL employees). 3.Procedures for the utilization of the NABC Appeals Committee (obviously a scaled down and compact version) in cases which are of such technical complexity to require an expert panel or in cases involving conduct and/or ethics. 4.A table indicating the overall ratings of the TD rulings and the NABC Appeals Committee rulings as rated by the expert panel and published in the casebooks. Also, a review of how many times a committee made a major change to a TD ruling compared to the total number of cases (and, if possible, the expert panel ratings on each for comparison). Also, if possible, an estimate of the total number of TD rulings made during an NABC. --------------(end) (this motion was passed, with a few dissents) The overall ratings for each NABC are published in the NABC's casebook. Here are the ratings (chronologically) from Miami, San Francisco, Dallas (including 4 from ITT trials), Albuquerque, and St Louis NABCs, respectively (Reno and Chicago casebooks not published yet, and I don't have earlier casebooks. The number of cases were, respectively, 17, 34, 20 TDs/21A ACs, 30, and 44, a total of 145 cases for TDs and 146 for ACs. (Case 18 in the Dallas casebook was an ITT case in which no TD was involved.) TD's average ratings were 76.8, 85.4, 81, 72.6, and 78.1, which comes to a weighted average of 79.3 AC's average ratings were 79.7, 76,0, 84, 80.7, and 81.1, which comes to a weighted average of 80.1 That's pretty close (somebody check me please), but there is more to the story. The ratings themselves must not be taken too literally. I believe that the panelists are asked to rate a TD/AC on a scale of something like 1 to 5, with answers added, averaged, and multiplied by 20 to get a scale of 20-100. If so, the accuracy implied by the numbers is not valid. I could be wrong about the method, I have no certain knowledge, but I doubt that each panelist comes up with a 0.0-100.0 rating. The lowest rating for a TD decision was 38.8, and for an AC 38.9, if that is significant. Anyway, a conclusion that TD/AC decisions are about equal in quality overall (according to the panelists, anyway) seems to be justified. Should ACs be done away with for non-technical cases? I don't know. There were 11 cases in which the AC agreed with a TD decision, but had to change an inappropriate artificial score adjustment to an assigned score. The effect on ratings, if any, was less than it should have been. Four more artificial adjustments by TDs were changed to "table result stands," and one was changed from artificial to an abominable "mixed" (artificial-assigned) score. ACs made mixed adjustments in three other cases too. There were 9 cases in which the AC adjusted with an artificial score instead of assigning a score when disagreeing with a TD ruling. I've seen no mixed score adjustments so far in the Reno and Chicago NABC cases, so let's hope that practice has been dropped. I haven't done the suggested calculation: looking at TD/AC disagreements to see which did better in the ratings for such cases. Off the top of my head I would guess that they must have equalized, since the overall TD/AC ratings are so close. There were lots of disagreements (about 2/3 of Miami's 33 cases), but some were of a minor nature. Occasionally a panelist comments on (and presumably rates) a case in which he/she was on the AC, not cricket. The composition of the panel changes somewhat from casebook to casebook, so that is an effect also. My favorite is Ron Gerard. Editor Rich Colker's comments are well done. No pulling of punches by anyone, which is good to see. Of some interest to me was the overall rating for the ACs of various AC chairmen. It would not be politic to publish my findings on that, I suppose, but I will say that one of the most prominent AC chairmen had an average rating of 73.9 (11 cases), pretty dismal when you consider that some cases are easy ones. One reason not to publish names/scores is that the chairman is only 1/3 or 1/5 of the AC. On the other hand, he/she can dissent (as some do) from the AC decision if not in agreement with it, and I don't count those cases when figuring the overall rating for a particular chairman. The BoD might consider improving the quality of ACs before pulling the plug on them. They should do much better than TDs, who have to make rulings under extreme time constraints. Rich Colker wrote an excellent "Call to Arms" in the St. Louis NABC casebook, in which he discussed ways to improve ACs. The first suggestion was that "service on our National ACs should be merit-based--not a political or social plum, as it has too often been in the past." Seems like a good start. I would think that the good TDs are too busy with other things to spare the time for AC participation. If that means less capable TDs would be on the ACs, then I am dubious about that idea. My idea is that screening should be more effective, to reduce the number of cases that should never get to an AC. Less work leads to better quality. I hope all this was of interest to BLML. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 05:20:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:20:41 +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 FAA04430 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:20:33 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-173.access.net.il [192.116.198.173]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA23678; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:57:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3623A275.ABDA91B5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:56:53 +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: Belgian TD day (1) References: <3621E1FB.B4C677C@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good case Herman But I suggest - the most important item is to educate player to play bridge !!!!!!! and not an interesting case "cucuricu-game" ; according to David B's definition , there is even a mechanical rule - 44C as much as I remember - which defines the players' first duty to follow suit -> even I am able to do it when don't snore at table . About the ruling : by definition of L64B2- no penalty for second revoke. If relevant - and I BELIEVE 92% it is - L64C will be applied , to restore equity. Dany P.S. I was involved in an almost similar case : The declarer , playing 4H , won first Diam ,revoked on the second Diam , ruffed the third Diam and drew 3 rounds of trumps when both opponents contributed trumps 3 times . At trick 9 he played another D from dummy and ruffed it . What should we rule ????? Herman De Wael wrote: > > Yesterday the Belgian TD's held a meeting/refresher course/... > > A few interesting items, each in separate threads. > > On a club trick lead from dummy, declarer revokes. (dummy makes the > trick) > > On a subsequent club trick from dummy, defender ruffs and declarer > overruffs. > > Declarer does not make any other club tricks, but some others. > > Penalty ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 06:35:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:35:06 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04645 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:35:00 +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 PAA14529; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981013162201.007aab40@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:22:01 -0400 To: , From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs In-Reply-To: <199810131922.MAA09977@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 PM 10/13/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Anyway, a conclusion that TD/AC decisions are about equal in >quality overall (according to the panelists, anyway) seems to be >justified. Isn't it possible for the TD to make the correct decision at the table and for an AC to be correct in overturning the TD decision? In other words, can't a TD and an AC get high ratings for the same case, yet come to different decisions? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 06:34:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:34:27 +1000 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04632 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:34:17 +1000 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DRGFW7M3; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:36:37 EDT To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:47:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Disqualified Contestants Message-ID: <19981003.174707.18798.0.paulhar@juno.com> References: <199810120756.AAA11645@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-20,23-27,29-35,38-51,54-61,66-73 From: paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:52:17 -0700 "Marvin L. French" writes: >Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered >to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are >caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive >bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the >event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's >decision. > >Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their >opponents? > >1. In a multi-section two-session matchpoint pair event, where they >were second in their section in the first session, third in section >in the second section, and ended up third overall > >My opinion: Every one of their results is thrown out, the opponents >getting average-plus (60%, or their percentage score without the >board, whichever is greater) on every such deal. I think it should be just average plus; why should the pairs that played this pair get a top and an average plus putting pairs that don't play this pair at a distinct and large disadvantage? > >2. Similar event, but IMP-Pairs instead of matchpoint pairs > >My opinion: I have no idea. Same idea, just factor the other scores up - if the pair has a negative IMP total they probably weren't coming in anywhere anyway > >3. In a Swiss team win-loss event, where they were 6-1, and the >last match was a win, tying another 6-1 team > >My opinion: All matches that they did not lose are scored as >losses. That was easy. Not so easy - the team that lost to this team got easier draws as a result - I might give them 3/4 of a win (or 60% like an average plus!) but anything more seems to give these teams an unfair advantage > >4. In a Swiss team Victory Point event, where they were 6-1 with >enough VPs for second place > >My opinion: They get zero VPs. Opposing teams get 60% of the >available VPs for their match, or actual VPs won, whichever is >greater. Seems reasonable > >5. In a BAM event, where they won the board on which they were >caught cheating, and also won the event > >My opinion: Every board they played is a loss. I think they just shouldn't count and factor the other boards for the same reason - why give this team's opponents this much of an edge? you could give 60% if that is better than factoring up > >6. In a knockout match, which they have lost by 1 IMP, but the size >of the margin of defeat is a factor in the event > >My opinion: I have no idea Me either :) AFTER I DRAFTED THIS REPLY I saw the response (Jeff's?) that all boards in which cheating were not found should have their results stand. I can't agree... the fact that cheating was found would imply the existence of other cheating - does anyone really have a sophisticated cheating system for just ONE HAND?, so it seems fairer to just throw 'em all out. > >Other opinions would be appreciated very much, > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 06:43:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:43:45 +1000 Received: from mail.sb.net (root@mail.sb.net [209.241.234.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04681 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:43:39 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.72 (pool-207-205-159-96.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.96]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA00482 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3623C82E.53C5@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:38:41 -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: ACBL National ACs References: <199810131922.MAA09977@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have snipped a lot of this. Comments interspersed. Pre-note: Sorry this is ACBL-specific. I hope it's of interest to the general membership of the list. Marvin L. French wrote: > > The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Chicago BoD: > Item 982-04: Appeals Procedures at NABCs > > Management will prepare a proposed guideline for consideration for > appeals at NABCs which follow the recommendations set forth in the > report of the Committee for the Future of Bridge. The guidelines > will contain: > > 1.Procedures for choosing tournament directors to serve on > committees - will it be done by those TDs running the particular > event in which the appeal occurs or by a generic committee > established by the DIC, etc? > [snip] > 3.Procedures for the utilization of the NABC Appeals Committee > (obviously a scaled down and compact version) in cases which are of > such technical complexity to require an expert panel or in cases > involving conduct and/or ethics. > [snip] First off, the general percentage of cases going to appeal is very small, primarily because players don't know the rules and the directors are extremely heavy-handed in trying to stop appeals. Also, even litigious souls such as myself are involved in very few appeals; in my life I've been a litigant in one appeal to an AC (although I've appealed up the line to directors in several cases, and I've let many drop because I wanted to go home and it had no real effect on anyone in contention's score.) Because of this, I don't buy the argument made that ACs are scaring off customers and promote a feeling of unfairness. Secondly [WARNING: RANT AHEAD] the ACBL directors are mostly very poor when it comes to non-trivial rulings. In the Southern California area, it's very bad. There are a handful of decent directors (as far as ruling; as far as the rest of it, most of them are very good now -- game administration is really quite nice these days), and it declines from decent. They aren't paid well, learn no real skills for any other occupation, and have to travel a lot, so it's not surprising people aren't passing up medical school to become ACBL directors (yes, I'd like to see the directors paid a little better), but I'm afraid of what would happen if the inmates, er, directors took over. I think they'd rule with their running buddies almost every time. Why do I think they'd cover for each other? They already do. There's one director in the area whom, it is safe to say, is not brimming with affection for me. After one adverse ruling (a national-class pair was ruled to not have to explain their agreement of a 4th seat 4S bid), director and opponents laugh and opponent points at us during a conversation between boards. I was very unhappy with what I perceived as public ridicule, asked the ACBL to investigate, and another director investigated and found that they weren't talking about me (just pointing randomly, apparently.) The same director was the DIC at a regional and, after I appealed the floor directors ruling, he started to come to my table, saw me, and said loudly "Oh my God, this is going to take a while." Other directors told me that had nothing to do with his seeing me; it was clear they were willing to cover for him. And that's the problem: Directors in the ACBL cover for each other. And there are a lot of very bad directors. Having directors on ACs will lead to terrible injustices. Let me make clear that there are directors whom I like and respect in the area. They aren't great at bridge judgment matters, but they know the rules, or at least are willing to look them up -- and they are willing to reconsider if I protest. [snipping my own further rant here, including amazingly special director rulings, and what other directors did to try to cover.] > > --------------(end) (this motion was passed, with a few dissents) > [snip, ratings of cases in casebooks.] > TD's average ratings were 76.8, 85.4, 81, 72.6, and 78.1, which > comes to a weighted average of 79.3 > > AC's average ratings were 79.7, 76,0, 84, 80.7, and 81.1, which > comes to a weighted average of 80.1 > > That's pretty close (somebody check me please), but there is more > to the story. The ratings themselves must not be taken too > literally. I believe that the panelists are asked to rate a TD/AC > on a scale of something like 1 to 5, with answers added, averaged, > and multiplied by 20 to get a scale of 20-100. If so, the accuracy > implied by the numbers is not valid. I could be wrong about the > method, I have no certain knowledge, but I doubt that each panelist > comes up with a 0.0-100.0 rating. The lowest rating for a TD > decision was 38.8, and for an AC 38.9, if that is significant. > > Anyway, a conclusion that TD/AC decisions are about equal in > quality overall (according to the panelists, anyway) seems to be > justified. No! No! No! Frequently the expert panel agrees that the TD was right to rule for NOs (because the TD couldn't play his way out of a paper bag, and made his best guess) and the AC was right to overturn as a matter of bridge judgment. Also, the TDs are cut some slack because of the time pressure they are under. > I haven't done the suggested calculation: looking at TD/AC > disagreements to see which did better in the ratings for such > cases. Off the top of my head I would guess that they must have > equalized, since the overall TD/AC ratings are so close. There were > lots of disagreements (about 2/3 of Miami's 33 cases), but some > were of a minor nature. Again, remember that the TDs get cut some slack in the ratings process (and rightly so.) One other note: The AC's I've seen and been on are much, much better at fact-finding than directors are. [snip] > The BoD might consider improving the quality of ACs before pulling > the plug on them. They should do much better than TDs, who have to > make rulings under extreme time constraints. Rich Colker wrote an > excellent "Call to Arms" in the St. Louis NABC casebook, in which > he discussed ways to improve ACs. The first suggestion was that > "service on our National ACs should be merit-based--not a political > or social plum, as it has too often been in the past." Seems like a > good start. HOORAY! > > I would think that the good TDs Marv plays in the same area I do. He knows the plural is inappropriate. Oh, sorry, ranting unnecessarily now. [snip] Keep the directors off the ACs, please. The system has made strides forward; let's not destroy it now, when progress is being made. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 07:29:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:29:35 +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 HAA04757 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:29:30 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:34:43 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:34:03 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (pas d'objet) 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 Marv, I am sure you will make it clear to the list whether you mean the=20 French version of the Laws or French=27s version of the Laws :) And yes, welcome to Claude=21 Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> =22Marvin L. French=22 14/10/98 3:21:04 >>> Welcome to Claude DADOUN, senior French TD.=20 Maybe Claude will be kind enough to give his thoughts about the definition of =22convention=22 in the French version of the Laws, especially whether he believes that the translation was correct. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench=40writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:44:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:44 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05181 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:36 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08142 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:27:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany wrote: As much as I remember it is your first message ..... The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . Enough is enough!!!! Where are the puppies!!! Mine: Panda - a 9 yr. old goofy black and white Shih Tzu Gus - an 8 yr old adorable Bichon Frise Although I must say I just spent the weekend with my dear friends Bruce and Sue Reeve in Raleigh and they have two not so bad cats... their black and white one, Scotty, that looks just like Socks (the Clintons cat) is a very nice match for my black and white Shih Tzu (even the same size) and their pure white cat, Princess, is a perfect match to my Bichon. All together, they would be a wild bunch. Linda p.s. and who is going to keep our list? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:44:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:56 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05196 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:47 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08156 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810132348.TAA08156@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:38:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Origin of the term 'psyche' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I remember the discussion we had a while back regarding the spelling of the term for psychic bids. I also remember there was some talk about where the term came from in the first place, but I don't remember anyone ever actually nailing this down. Ran across an interesting bridge book last week by Sue Emery (long time editor of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin magazine) called Fancy Passing - Fifty years of Contract Bridge. I offer the following quote from the book. Page 58 Dorothy Sims "She is widely credited with inventing the psychic bid, but probably initiated only the popular name for it; however, she wrote her first book on the subject, PSYCHIC BIDDING, 1932. As she used to tell it, she once picked up a hand containing five spades and five hearts in a duplicate at the Knickerbocker Whist Club. Not knowing which to bid, she opened 1C and her partner responded with 1H. It gave them the best score on that board. In writing up her discovery for a magazine she meant to label it 'psychological bidding'. Her spelling failed her, however, and the word came out 'sycic', and deceitful bids have been known as 'psychics' or 'sikes' ever since. She was accused of making psychic passes with her bicycle and was known as the 'Red Devil' - bane of traffic officers in her neighborhood." Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:44:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:40 +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 JAA05177 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:33 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08131 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:31:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? In-Reply-To: <199810130332.UAA11260@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> If you have such an agreement, passing isn't a LA for you. But >if you >> want to avoid a score adjustment, you have to have some evidence >that >> your agreement is as you say. Exactly. When you play something that is not in the norm you should have notes if you are of the frame of mind you would appeal a Director's ruling that does not favor your rather odd (I mean, to the rest of the bridge world) treatments. Committees would certainly be worse off if they believed everything they were ever told by every player. I happen to believe they do a fairly good as well as consistent job in this area. > >Which is why I urge everyone to have their system notes available, >at least those that include something not everyone plays. Yup, and if aren't willing to make the time investment to do this and a ruling happens when you know what you say really is self-serving - don't appeal and be prepared the next time. It's happened to me and that's what I did. Be sure >to whip them out when the TD rules against you, as the AC skeptics >might think you wrote them after the fact. I hope this was a toungue-in-cheek comment - if not, it was really unfair - that would never happen. I know I am ultra-sensitive to a remark of this type, because I am one of the fools who is up until 3am every morning at a Nationals :-) Linda > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:44:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:49 +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 JAA05190 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:44:43 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08162 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810132348.TAA08162@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:40:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Case from Lille Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Do any of you folks who were in Lille happen to know who served on the Committee chaired by Bobby Wolff that we have been talking about here? (the 1NT psych) We are including 8 cases from Lille in our casebook and this will be one of them. Do not have the names of the other Committee members. Thanks Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:46:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:46:16 +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 JAA05239 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:45:20 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08148 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:48:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:43:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >As a Director, when I encounter this type of situation, I explain that >other circumstances beyond those perceived MAY have caused the action >construed as UB and benefit of doubt must be given. When convictions are >strong, recorder forms are made available. I will not permit anybody's >personal integrity to be compromised at a Bridge event. Am I correct? I >can't find it in the lawbook. I hope you turned in a Recorder form! What happened to you was awful and my immediate reaction is that said player should be thrown out of the league right now for a very long time. That action was far worse, in my mind, than any cheating anyone could have perpetrated. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:48:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:48:44 +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 JAA05265 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:48:39 +1000 Received: from modem61.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.189] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zTEEe-0003hY-00; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:52:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: conventions Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:46:00 +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. "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: conventions > Date: 12 October 1998 22:43 > > [changing the thread name again.] > > From: "Marvin L. French" > . \x/ \x/ > This is the point under discussion. Either all of them do (which is > what the written definition says) or none of them does (which is what > the statement from Lille seems to say). Either position seems > defensible to me, absent more information. Can Grattan or anyone else > confirm that the intention of the Lille statement was to say that > indeed none of the agreements about suit order constitutes a > convention> > +++++It seems to me that the only real use for a definition of 'convention' is in deciding whether regulation is empowered by Law 40D. (There may be some use for it also if the regulating authority prescribes that conventional calls are alertable and fails to do any homework in qualifying the statement). But I am truly at a loss when I find it the subject of unending discussion. I do not go along fully with the statements in the above extract. The WBFLC gave its attention to only one specific example in its Lille pronouncement: it said that if you make an opening bid to show the named suit this is not conventional merely because it implies, as all the world will understand, that there is no longer suit in the hand. The minute made only a general statement, this apart. Now I think that bit about universal understanding is significant. I think it points to a WBFLC view that something that should be manifest to all is not a special partnership understanding but is simply bridge. A call that is made to show the named suit is not conventional if it carries no meaning that will not be apparent to any player (leaving aside the novice) without explanation. Having arrived at this point I would think it is open to a regulating authority to identify calls which are superficially 'natural' BUT which convey a meaning that will not necessarily be manifest to other players (in its opinion) , and define these as conventions. They can then regulate the use of such calls or in most cases merely state disclosure requirements, or not. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:59:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:12 +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 JAA05315 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:06 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTEOg-0005MW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:02:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:30:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Guida wrote: >Yes, I have cats, two of them, Vivian, 14, Olivia, 9, but that's not the >"C" word I was talking about. Hi - I'll put them on the list! >I was trained as a director that accusations of "cheating" will not be >tolerated at any club or tournament and I have advised all my students >accordingly. Proper procedure is to wait until the end of the round, speak >to the director privately and describe the occurrence that "appeared to be" >unethical behavior. >Is this correct? Yes. In a perfect world everyone acts perfectly. However, in the case of a minor misdemeanor such as the one you describe [which was nothing to do with cheating and there was no accusation of cheating] it is normal to call the TD at the time. It is probable the TD was insensitive to the atmosphere and could have handled your case better. OK. But such things happen, and there will always be arguments if you hesitate even unintentionally. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 09:59:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:18 +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 JAA05320 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:10 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTEOg-0005MV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:02:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:15:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Haglich wrote: >At 01:14 -0400 10/13/98, Jim Guida wrote: >>I was trained as a director that accusations of "cheating" will not be >>tolerated at any club or tournament and I have advised all my students >>accordingly. Proper procedure is to wait until the end of the round, speak >>to the director privately and describe the occurrence that "appeared to be" >>unethical behavior. >>Is this correct? > >(Note: this question may contain information only pertinent to the ACBL. >My apologies to the subscribers of other continents.) > >This is particularly timely for me. Recently during a KO match at a local >Regional, sometime around the 9th board of the second half my LHO opened >2NT without using the "Stop Card". I was a bit aghast as my partner asked >my RHO "Is there any significance to the bid when he doesn't use the Stop >Card?" Of course RHO answered "No" and the matter was dropped there. > >I confronted my partner about it after the match. Actually, he came to me >and told me he had noticed me picking up my jaw from the floor after his >question. He explained that he had noticed LHO using the Stop Card on 2 >earlier preemptive bids, so he didn't seem to be following ACBL rules for >its use. > >The real question of mine is this: What should my partner have really >done? I don't think my partner thought this pair was truly being >unethical, they were much better than we were (as in nationally ranked) and >were pretty far ahead in the match. Should he have summoned the TD >immediately? Should he have filled out a recorder's form later? I suspect >the pragmatic thing to do would have been to just let it go. I think your partner acted correctly. He asked a simple question without accusing anyone and then made his decision based on the answer. Far better than using a Recorder form is he was not sure. Mind you, what I have to say about the ACBL permitting the Stop card not to be a 100% requirement is not fit to print! >P.S. This is my second posting to BLML. David S. welcomed me nicely after >the first but failed to ask if I have cats. My answer, "having none". Whoops, sorry! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 10:11:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:11:45 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05357 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:11:37 +1000 Received: from default (ptp51.ac.net [205.138.54.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA11043 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810140015.UAA11043@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:22:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs In-Reply-To: <3623C82E.53C5@mindspring.com> References: <199810131922.MAA09977@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Also relating to the rating numbers - Here is what the panelists are sent: 1 _____ 2 _____ 3 1= hopeless 2= ok 3= outstanding (the explanation to them is more detailed, if you want to know what 1, 2, and 3 are exactly, I can provide that) All of them are good about writing in a number in the blanks when they feel it is appropriate and almost always do. I never get a sheet back with only 1's 2's or 3's circled. I get a few written in zeros sometimes. We convert the votes to a percentage. An obvious problem comes in when a panelist doesn't include ratings with their comments. There is usually one, sometimes two of those. Still probably won't matter if whoever uses these numbers is not expecting perfect accuracy. The gist is definitely there. I would rather have these numbers than not, because a lot of people not well versed in laws and appeals read them. Before the numbers I would get complaints that someone would read all the comments and still not know whether the panel thought a committee had made a good decision or not. The numbers before you read the commentary sort of gives you a general gist in this direction. It is sometimes easy to agree with both points of view that are expressed. Also, as far as panelists being committee members, please don't make a bad assumption there. Some of them don't rate those particular cases. Others do, and sometimes give themselves a pretty low grade. Things can look different the next day, week, or month. I'm sure some of you who have served on committees have sometimes realized the next day you were maybe not perfect. I know I have. They don't give themselves good marks just because they were on a committee. As far as Directors serving on Committees, (at the NABC level only) that may not be the worst idea of all times. Committee members are not always as well versed on the Laws as they should be and having one Director on a committee of five, might actually be good for the process overall. (As long as they don't get paid overtime!!!) We do operate all of our NAC committees by majority rules. We do have some pretty good Directors out there that would be good team members and an asset to the process. The Director of Appeals and the Co-Chairmen should have the same say about these Committee folks as they do all the others. I would hope we would be willing to trust them to do the right thing. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 10:30:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:30:11 +1000 Received: from node21.frontiernet.net (node21.frontiernet.net [209.130.129.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05417 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:30:02 +1000 Received: from bickford (as5300-7-21.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [209.130.186.24]) by node21.frontiernet.net (8.8.8a/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA150314; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:14 -0400 Message-ID: <05ad01bdf6fd$df28e540$18ba82d1@bickford> From: "Bill Bickford" To: , Subject: Re: Disqualified Contestants Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:04:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05AA_01BDF6DC.55FFAFE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05AA_01BDF6DC.55FFAFE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered >to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are >caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive >bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the >event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's >decision. > >Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their >opponents? > >1. In a multi-section two-session matchpoint pair event, where they >were second in their section in the first session, third in section >in the second section, and ended up third overall > >My opinion: Every one of their results is thrown out, the opponents >getting average-plus (60%, or their percentage score without the >board, whichever is greater) on every such deal. ---- Yes, but if their actual score was higher, they get that; why should they be adjusted down for being the only pair to bid and make 7NT? > >2. Similar event, but IMP-Pairs instead of matchpoint pairs > >My opinion: I have no idea. > ---- 60% or percent of game over datum with the same proviso as above. >3. In a Swiss team win-loss event, where they were 6-1, and the >last match was a win, tying another 6-1 team > >My opinion: All matches that they did not lose are scored as >losses. That was easy. > ---- Yes >4. In a Swiss team Victory Point event, where they were 6-1 with >enough VPs for second place > >My opinion: They get zero VPs. Opposing teams get 60% of the >available VPs for their match, or actual VPs won, whichever is >greater. > ---- Yes >5. In a BAM event, where they won the board on which they were >caught cheating, and also won the event > >My opinion: Every board they played is a loss. > ---- Yes >6. In a knockout match, which they have lost by 1 IMP, but the size >of the margin of defeat is a factor in the event > >My opinion: I have no idea > ---- Who knows??? This would probably have to be decided on a case by case basis. >Other opinions would be appreciated very much, > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > ------=_NextPart_000_05AA_01BDF6DC.55FFAFE0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Bill Bickford.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Bill Bickford.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bickford;Bill FN:Bill Bickford EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:bickford@frontiernet.net REV:19981013T230443Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_05AA_01BDF6DC.55FFAFE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 10:40:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:40:39 +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 KAA05441 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:40:34 +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 ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:44:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3623F47A.1282D20B@home.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:46:50 -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 "C" word References: <36242D13.1052@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: > Peter Haglich wrote: > > David S. welcomed me nicely after > > the first but failed to ask if I have cats. My answer, "having > > > > none". > > That's why you were not asked:)) Like the US military in relation to homosexuality, we should probably employ a "don't ask - don't tell" policy! :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 14:59:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:59:37 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA06158 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:59:30 +1000 Received: from [207.226.101.10] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA14010; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:03:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:57:59 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Peter Haglich Subject: The Stop Card: (Was: Re: The "C" word) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting. I took my partner's question as almost being equivalent to the question "Do you have an illegal agreement about the extraneous use of the Stop Card?" Robin Barker's suggestion of a request to the opponent to be consistent with the use of the Stop Card seemed like a fairly practical way to handle the situation. Peter Oh darn, I found a cat, having earlier shown out of cats. Does that mean I get a 1 pet penalty or a 2 pet penalty? At 17:15 +0100 10/13/98, David Stevenson wrote: > I think your partner acted correctly. He asked a simple question >without accusing anyone and then made his decision based on the answer. >Far better than using a Recorder form is he was not sure. >>This is particularly timely for me. Recently during a KO match at a local >>Regional, sometime around the 9th board of the second half my LHO opened >>2NT without using the "Stop Card". I was a bit aghast as my partner asked >>my RHO "Is there any significance to the bid when he doesn't use the Stop >>Card?" Of course RHO answered "No" and the matter was dropped there. >> >>I confronted my partner about it after the match. Actually, he came to me >>and told me he had noticed me picking up my jaw from the floor after his >>question. He explained that he had noticed LHO using the Stop Card on 2 >>earlier preemptive bids, so he didn't seem to be following ACBL rules for >>its use. >> >>The real question of mine is this: What should my partner have really >>done? I don't think my partner thought this pair was truly being >>unethical, they were much better than we were (as in nationally ranked) and >>were pretty far ahead in the match. Should he have summoned the TD >>immediately? Should he have filled out a recorder's form later? I suspect >>the pragmatic thing to do would have been to just let it go. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 15:25:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:25:09 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA06280 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:25:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA03041 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810140528.WAA03041@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:26:05 -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 Tim Goodwin writes: > >Anyway, a conclusion that TD/AC decisions are about equal in > >quality overall (according to the panelists, anyway) seems to be > >justified. > > Isn't it possible for the TD to make the correct decision at the table > and for an AC to be correct in overturning the TD decision? > In other words, > can't a TD and an AC get high ratings for the same case, yet come to > different decisions? Did I say otherwise? The answer is yes, if the AC obtained facts that the TD did not have, or if the decision was so close that it could have gone either way (in the opinion of the panel). Just glancing through my spreadsheet (I love spreadsheets, they tell their stories so well), I see very few cases where an equally good rating was given when an AC overturned a TD decision. Sometimes a good TD decision gets overturned by a better AC decision, but the AC gets a higher rating. In Miami cases 5 and 6 both TDs got 80.6 for their adjusted score, and both ACs got 89.4 for letting the table result stand. Coincidence? No, both ACs had the same members, and the appeal concerned a tempo problem on the same board, same bidding, same hand doing the hesitating. I bet those who assign cases to the ACs are very careful to see that identical cases go to the same AC! Some panelists thought this should not be so. Miami cases 5 and 6 bring up another consideration: Sometimes the panelists' ratings are more than questionable. Ron Gerard thought so for these cases, starting with: "I have to be careful here, what with libel laws and all." Those interested can view these cases on the web site of Federation Suisse de Bridge, http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/miami.html Oddly enough, there are some significant differences in rating for decisions that were the same! In case 28 in Albuquerque, both TD and AC ruled that table result stands, but TD got an 81.0 and AC 71.4. This was because the AC received slightly different evidence about a dropped card than the TD obtained, making the AC decision a little less justifiable, perhaps, in the opinion of some panelists. Or maybe the panelists were irked at chairman Bob Hamman for not having provided a write-up of the case, which had to be pieced together from the appeal form and the recollections of some AC members four months after the fact. That *should* affect the AC rating! I want to add that an 80 average might not be as bad as it looks. If the panel were told to assign scores on a scale of 1 to 5, I imagine some excellent, but not perfect, decisions would rate a 4 from some panelists. Like women, as the country song goes, they're rated from 1 to 10, but "there ain't no ten." Just a guess, I don't know how this was done, or whether they were constrained to whole numbers. I should have asked Rich Colker, but I didn't think this was very important. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 15:32:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:32:30 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA06328 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:32:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA03984 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810140535.WAA03984@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: (pas d'objet) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:33:24 -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 Simon Edler wrote: > Marv, > I am sure you will make it clear to the list whether you mean the > French version of the Laws or French's version of the Laws :) > As regards the definition of convention, both are identical, so it makes no difference. :) > And yes, welcome to Claude! > > > > >>> "Marvin L. French" > Welcome to Claude DADOUN, senior French TD. > > Maybe Claude will be kind enough to give his thoughts about the > definition of "convention" in the French version of the Laws, > especially whether he believes that the translation was correct. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 16:05:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA06444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:05:39 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA06439 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:05:30 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-167.access.net.il [192.116.198.167]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id IAA08306; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:08:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:08:29 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Weinstein CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Linda ....... and all H-BLML (human....) collaborators His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him too........ Ok - now please send here the data for : D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus Dany Haimovich - Kushi Waiting for the.......dogs , puppies , chr chr chr chr ..... Dany Linda Weinstein wrote: > > Dany wrote: > > As much as I remember it is your first message ..... > The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are > cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; > they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . > > Enough is enough!!!! > Where are the puppies!!! > > Mine: > Panda - a 9 yr. old goofy black and white Shih Tzu > Gus - an 8 yr old adorable Bichon Frise > > Although I must say I just spent the weekend with my dear friends Bruce and > Sue Reeve in Raleigh and they have two not so bad cats... their black and > white one, Scotty, that looks just like Socks (the Clintons cat) is a very > nice match for my black and white Shih Tzu (even the same size) and their > pure white cat, Princess, is a perfect match to my Bichon. All together, > they would be a wild bunch. > > Linda > p.s. and who is going to keep our list? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 16:07:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA06460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:07:26 +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 QAA06454 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:07:18 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09132 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810140610.XAA09132@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: Origin of the term 'psyche' Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:08:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: > > Ran across an interesting bridge book last week by Sue Emery (long time > editor of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin magazine) called Fancy Passing - Fifty > years of Contract Bridge. I offer the following quote from the book. > > Page 58 > > Dorothy Sims > > "She is widely credited with inventing the psychic bid, but probably > initiated only the popular name for it; however, she wrote her first book > on the subject, PSYCHIC BIDDING, 1932. > > As she used to tell it, she once picked up a hand containing five spades > and five hearts in a duplicate at the Knickerbocker Whist Club. Not > knowing which to bid, she opened 1C and her partner responded with 1H. It > gave them the best score on that board. In writing up her discovery for a > magazine she meant to label it 'psychological bidding'. Her spelling > failed her, however, and the word came out 'sycic', and deceitful bids have > been known as 'psychics' or 'sikes' ever since. She was accused of making > psychic passes with her bicycle and was known as the 'Red Devil' - bane of > traffic officers in her neighborhood." > Yes, and the proper American spelling of "sike" is "psych" although some, perhaps through confusion with the two-syllable name of a Greek gal, or with the two-syllable word meaning soul, spirit, spell it "psyche." That spelling is nearly universal in the old country, hence correct there. An argument for it is that a long i sound usually requires a final e (e.g., mil-mile, pip-pipe, etc.). An argument against it is that most people think "sigh'-key" when they see that spelling. According to the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge, Dorothy wrote the first book on psychs, entitled "Psychic Bidding." The writer is skeptical about her invention of the practice, but says she probably invented the term for it. Her husband, the great P. Hal Sims, wrote in his book *Money Bridge* that Dorothy "is the originator of modern psychological bidding (psychics)." That is part of a preface to chapter four, "Psychic Bids," written by Dorothy. In it she describes the use of psychic bids, which she calls "psychics" for short. I suppose that should be considered the official word, but Americans soon shortened it to "psychs." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 16:26:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA06566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:26:20 +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 QAA06561 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:26:14 +1000 Received: from default (ptp205.ac.net [205.138.55.114]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA11122 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810140629.CAA11122@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:37:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! In-Reply-To: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided >to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. HOORAY! HOORAY!! Oops.. sorry for shouting... >I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care >of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he >got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him >too........ >Ok - now please send here the data for : > >D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 17:09:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:09:38 +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 RAA06785 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:09:29 +1000 Received: from default (ptp205.ac.net [205.138.55.114]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA13341 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:12:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810140712.DAA13341@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:20:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19981013185903.56cf1992@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:59 PM 10/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >Thanks, Linda. My main concern was finding a LAW in the BOOK that >validates your opinion (and mine). It's spelled out quite nicely in ZT >policy, but an actual law is lacking. This only applies to ACBL members, so I hope the rest of you please excuse our little side discussion here. Oh, it's spelled out quite specifically in a document that you may be interested to know about. Actually, I am quite glad this document exists. Don't forget, we really are only members of a social organization and I firmly believe and am glad that our Board has taken the time to create this document and all its procedures. It really is quite complete. It is called the ACBL Code of Disclipinary Regulations. It is in force by the Board of Directors and is reviewed and updated regularly. Conduct and Ethics Committees are regularly convened to handle such matters. The Cadillac of C&E Committees is the Ethical Oversight Committee that is composed of 20-25 of our most highly respected ACBL members (appointed for life - this is NOT a political plum committee by any stretch) and acts as "a disclipinary body in cases of alleged cheating by use of signals, other unauthorized information, other forms of cheating, or serious breaches of ethics." Some Laws that may apply (this is without not much thought - but you get the drift) Law 81C4, 81B2, 91B, 93B2 and I do think Law 74A1, 74A2, 74B2 also fit... Actually I think the laws make it quite clear that sponsoring organizations are empowered to and should make procedures as to how they will handle disciplinary problems as it pertains to their members.. and that is exactly where it belongs... ACBL makes theirs, and all the other countries that have bridge membership organizations make theirs as they see fit... (sorry I don't better know the names of their organizations). Of course, these apply to anyone who enters one of our sanctioned events, whether they are an ACBL member or not. That is a benefit of being a 'private' club, so to speak. As an aside, turn over your entry form that you receive and read the info that is on the back. (Gosh, it is still there, I hope, I haven't checked in ages) The document outlines the six grounds for disclipine that apply in the ACBL: 1. Violations of the proprieties codified in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2. Violations of ACBL regulations Here's yours- 3. Accusations of unethical conduct at an ACBL sanctioned event, not made privately to a tournament director or other tournament official. 4. Violation of Section 5.4 hereof. (basically this one deals with members that were supended or expelled that enter ACBL events while serving their sentence) 5. Betting on the results of any ACBL sanctioned game or tournament. 6. Failure to return a traveling trophy Hope this helps... this document is quite extensive and I would hope ACBL tournament players are aware of it's existance. Linda > >Robin Barker has pointed out that L74A2 is supposed to eliminate >intimidation, but is not adequate for this type of treatment. I want >better guidelines for dealing with the "C" word. Hi to the doggies. Jim. > At 05:43 PM 10/13/98 -0400, you wrote: > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 17:30:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:45 +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 RAA06832 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:36 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18588 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810140733.AAA18588@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:30:37 -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 John R. Mayne (the fearless) wrote: > > Pre-note: Sorry this is ACBL-specific. I hope it's of interest to the > general membership of the list. > > (Big snip of John's opinion of Southern California TDs, which was the same as mine. Many of them do great work that does not involve table rulings, however. We think of such rulings as being what a TD does, but it is only a small part of the job. Maybe table rulings should be done by specialists in that field.) > (snip of my arithmetic) > > > > Anyway, a conclusion that TD/AC decisions are about equal in > > quality overall (according to the panelists, anyway) seems to be > > justified. > > No! No! No! Frequently the expert panel agrees that the TD was right to > rule for NOs (because the TD couldn't play his way out of a paper bag, > and made his best guess) and the AC was right to overturn as a matter of > bridge judgment. Also, the TDs are cut some slack because of the time > pressure they are under. Almost all overturns of TD rulings resulted in widely different ratings for the TD and AC. The casebook discussions give no evidence of "cutting slack" for the TDs, as it looks like TDs and ACs were judged by the same criteria. The panelists do not rate on the basis of personal TD or AC merit as workers, but on the basis of the reasoning employed and decisions made, no allowance for time pressure on TDs or the lack of it on ACs. That's fine, because all we want to know is how good the decisions are. > > One other note: The AC's I've seen and been on are > much, much better at fact-finding than directors are. Yes, and that might not show up in the ratings. The TD in a sense is cut some slack, not to excuse poor reasoning but to judge how well he/she reasoned with the information available. Sometimes a TD was given a good score on a ruling that was overturned, and the AC got a better score. It's possible in such a case that the panel figured the TD was justified in his ruling with the information he had, but the AC made a better decision because it had access to more information. The panel understands that TDs don't have time to perform long quizzes about players' bidding habits, and don't expect it. I would not call that cutting slack, as the TDs are judged very harshly if they make a ruling that does not fit the circumstances. The casebook panelists are very candid in their opinions, to put it mildly. > > > > I would think that the good TDs... > > Marv plays in the same area I do. He knows the plural is inappropriate. > Oh, sorry, ranting unnecessarily now. I was referring to NABC TDs, many of whom are extremely good at their jobs. Not many in this area (Southern California), true. > It's difficult to define what constitutes a "good TD." We can't expect perfection from local TDs, even at the nearby regional level, when the best are busy at NABCs and big regionals in other areas. Also, it's a low paying job. I feel, however, that certain requirements go with being a TD at any level. One of them is to sit down and learn the ACBL regulations. Not one TD in this area knows the Alert regs. Sure they're complicated, but learning them is not that hard. I would also expect any TD to be somewhat familiar with the Laws, not just the mechanical things that come up all the time--BOOTs, revokes, LOOTs, etc.--but the basic principles of adjusting scores per L12, and of settling claims. Local TDs don't seem to know about L12C2, as avg+/avg- score adjustments are nearly universal. They might also enforce the regulations they know perfectly well: two score cards, legible and complete, on the table; 10 second wait after skip bids; no discussion of hands in front of opponents who have not played the hand; no letting opponents view one's scores or ones hand; no slow play, etc. All it would take is a short 20-second announcement about just one of these regulations before the start of every session, and assessment of a PP (for failure to comply with tournament regulations or instructions of the TD--L90B8) for repeated violations. (Now I've gotten out of this area, and into all of ACBL-land). And, of course, every ACBL TD with a computer should be required to participate, or at least lurk, on BLML. There's another person who is not doing his job: The Tournament Manager who is appointed for every sectional, regional, and NABC. The TM could insist that TDs enforce ACBL regulations, score in fair ways (across-the-field matchpointing), and schedule events other than stratified pairs and team games. TMs in this area are taking the recommendations of TDs when making up schedules, and TDs like stratified pairs because it's easier to manage one big game than several small ones. You're the Tournament Manager--manage the tournament! Show some initiative! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 19:11:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:11:55 +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 TAA07096 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:11:48 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTN1W-0000OC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:15:18 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4Z9K4XDY>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:33:38 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: SNIP > At Butler, the same effects are present. > > Barring the completely marginal effect as in the Wolff-Westra case, my > good results will also help my allies, my bad ones will hurt them. > > The fact that there are more "vagaries" should not induce us to try > other movements. > > You have failed to clear this up, I'm afraid. > > ########### One last attempt. If we organised a complete single > winner aggregate event with normally dealt boards, could this ever be > fair? I would argue not as, for instance, if one hand contains a bog > standard 7NT to NS that everyone would bid and make in their sleep > then the NS line will be +2220 and the EW line -2220 and nothing to do > with arrow-switches will ever rectify this damage to the EW line. Yet > clearly the net effect of such swings in the long run is zero to each > line as there is no systemic bias in this form of scoring to NS or EW > and this therefore seems to me to pass one of Herman's quoted tests of > fairness, ie. aggregate "is certainly fair and unbiased in the sense > that _a priori_ no direction or table position has a better chance to > win than any other." Yet I suspect that most people would regard the > randomness of aggregate scoring as so great as to overwhelm any fair > competition that is going on between individual pairs in different > lines. For most people, this would even be true if the movement was > two winner but incomplete, resulting in one or more NS's losing the > chance to play the 7NT board. > > In the case of Butler scoring, the randomness is not quite so great as > aggregate but we are still left with a value judgement as to whether > it is sufficient to overwhelm fair competition. If I take one view > and Herman takes the other then it simply means that either we have > reached different judgements as to the size of the random element in > proportion to the competitive element or else we have differing > definitions of 'fair' competition. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 20:00:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:45 +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 UAA07348 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:38 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTNmL-0002k0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:03:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:52:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >Where are the puppies!!! >p.s. and who is going to keep our list? Snnnnnaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllll !!!!!!!!! Not us! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 20:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:21:22 +1000 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07477 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:21:17 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p24-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.88]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA27865 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:24:14 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <35FE0A32.A44@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:33:22 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy's interference Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another strange one Called to table by south (West is declarer in 2S and dummy has Q/10.) North had lead a club taken in dummy by king and small club to declarer's ace leaving dummy void in clubs. Declarer now leads a small club aiming to ruff in dummy. North plays king of spades and declarer oblivious to the high ruff has her hand poised over the Q/10 trying to decide which to play when dummy leans forward and pushes her hand away saying "no point". How do you rule ? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 20:22:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:22:42 +1000 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07506 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:22:38 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p24-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.88]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA27986 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:25:34 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <35FE0AA9.2D05@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:35:21 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Change of lead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Struck an interesting one last night and would like to know if I used correct law. Declarer (south) is in heart contract with five hearts to Ace in hand and four to king, queen, jack in Dummy. When gets in leads ace and all follow. Leads low towards king. West follows and East plays small club. Leads Queen from dummy. East now states he has revoked as he has found a heart. Revoke is not established (Law 63) and must be corrected (62A) which is done and small club becomes major penalty card. Declarer now asked if she could change her lead as she doesn't need to draw trumps with queen. Law62c refers to subsequent cards played to trick - which is not the case. Law 47D seems to be the correct one and is ambiguous enough to cover this situation. I ruled she could replace queen of hearts in dummy and play any other she wanted. Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 21:15:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:15:08 +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 VAA07803 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:15:02 +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 MAA13770; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:18:23 +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 MAA14093; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:18:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA16385; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:18:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:18:16 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199810141118.MAA16385@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz Subject: Re: Dummy's interference Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B A Small > > Another strange one > > Called to table by south (West is declarer in 2S and dummy has Q/10.) > North had lead a club taken in dummy by king and small club to > declarer's ace leaving dummy void in clubs. Declarer now leads a small > club aiming to ruff in dummy. North plays king of spades and declarer > oblivious to the high ruff has her hand poised over the Q/10 trying to > decide which to play when dummy leans forward and pushes her hand away > saying "no point". How do you rule ? > I would rule under L45F, on the basis that dummy has suggested not playing a spade. I inform the players that dummy's suggestion may have damanged the NOS; I allow play to continue and may assign an adjusted score at the end of the hand. I imagine that if declarer chooses to under-ruff there is no damage, otherwise I adjust to the number of tricks if declarer had under-ruffed. 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 Oct 14 21:34:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:34:10 +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 VAA07896 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:34:04 +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 MAA14543; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:37:32 +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 MAA17168; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:37:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA16397; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:37:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:37:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199810141137.MAA16397@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz Subject: Re: Change of lead Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B A Small > > Declarer (south) is in heart contract with five hearts to Ace in hand > and four to king, queen, jack in Dummy. When gets in leads ace and all > follow. Leads low towards king. West follows and East plays small club. > Leads Queen from dummy. East now states he has revoked as he has found a > heart. Revoke is not established (Law 63) and must be corrected (62A) > which is done and small club becomes major penalty card. Declarer now > asked if she could change her lead as she doesn't need to draw trumps > with queen. Law62c refers to subsequent cards played to trick - which is > not the case. ... The heading of L62C refers to "Subsequent Cards Played to Trick" but the text of the law does not. It is more general "may ... withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke ...". As the headings are not part of the laws, L62C is all we need to allow the change of HQ. 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 Oct 14 22:03:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:03:15 +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 WAA08108 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:03:07 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-11.uunet.be [194.7.13.11]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19326 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:06:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362498D1.A725F3A6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:28:01 +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: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin produced an interesting argument, IMO flawed as well: > > > > ########### One last attempt. If we organised a complete single > > winner aggregate event with normally dealt boards, could this ever be > > fair? I would argue not as, for instance, if one hand contains a bog > > standard 7NT to NS that everyone would bid and make in their sleep > > then the NS line will be +2220 and the EW line -2220 and nothing to do > > with arrow-switches will ever rectify this damage to the EW line. Yet > > clearly the net effect of such swings in the long run is zero to each > > line as there is no systemic bias in this form of scoring to NS or EW > > and this therefore seems to me to pass one of Herman's quoted tests of > > fairness, ie. aggregate "is certainly fair and unbiased in the sense > > that _a priori_ no direction or table position has a better chance to > > win than any other." Yet I suspect that most people would regard the > > randomness of aggregate scoring as so great as to overwhelm any fair > > competition that is going on between individual pairs in different > > lines. For most people, this would even be true if the movement was > > two winner but incomplete, resulting in one or more NS's losing the > > chance to play the 7NT board. > > Two responses. If the "a-priori" is considered before the hands are dealt, this type of tournament could be considered fair, indeed. If the "a-priori" is considered after the dealing of the boards, this is no longer true. So indeed, in this type of tournament, the dealing of the cards produces an extra bit of "randomness" and thus creates a different system, yet an acceptable one . Secondly, this type of "randomness" could well be eliminated by centering. That way, there would, even when considering the cards, be a zero acceptance of the type. So please don't use the idea of aggregate scoring in your argument. The 7NT example is in that way a bad one. Try the same argument with NS having 21 points and an easier way to a 1NT contract. The argument is the same, but the effect of "aggregate" dissapears. > > In the case of Butler scoring, the randomness is not quite so great as > > aggregate but we are still left with a value judgement as to whether > > it is sufficient to overwhelm fair competition. If I take one view > > and Herman takes the other then it simply means that either we have > > reached different judgements as to the size of the random element in > > proportion to the competitive element or else we have differing > > definitions of 'fair' competition. ########## The former, we have different judgements of the size of the random element. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 22:03:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:03:17 +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 WAA08109 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:03:09 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-11.uunet.be [194.7.13.11]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19345 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:06:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36249ACB.7D8EA86D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:36:27 +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: Re: The Stop Card: (Was: Re: The "C" word) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Haglich wrote: > > > Oh darn, I found a cat, having earlier shown out of cats. Does that mean I > get a 1 pet penalty or a 2 pet penalty? > That depends on whether it was legal or illegal to ask about the revoke in your part of the world. Which leads me to MY usual question to newcomers, especially when showing .net domains : Where in the world are you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 22:13:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:13:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08193 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:13:22 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTPrH-0004A0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:15:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy's interference In-Reply-To: <199810141118.MAA16385@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > >> From: B A Small >> >> Another strange one >> >> Called to table by south (West is declarer in 2S and dummy has Q/10.) >> North had lead a club taken in dummy by king and small club to >> declarer's ace leaving dummy void in clubs. Declarer now leads a small >> club aiming to ruff in dummy. North plays king of spades and declarer >> oblivious to the high ruff has her hand poised over the Q/10 trying to >> decide which to play when dummy leans forward and pushes her hand away >> saying "no point". How do you rule ? >> > >I would rule under L45F, on the basis that dummy has suggested not >playing a spade. I inform the players that dummy's suggestion may have >damanged the NOS; I allow play to continue and may assign an adjusted >score at the end of the hand. I imagine that if declarer chooses to >under-ruff there is no damage, otherwise I adjust to the number of >tricks if declarer had under-ruffed. Not enough. This is one time you hit them with a heavy fine: at least double standard. Basically, despite howls from some members of BLML, I give them a larger fine if they happen to get no adjustment. Normal caveats: if this was a beginner, talk to them severely, not fine: if a novice [or charming young lady!] standard fine only, nothing if they lost a trick via adjustment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 14 23:06:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:06:47 +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 XAA08475 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:06:40 +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 PAA12310 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:10:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199810141310.PAA12310@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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:10:57 +0000 Subject: Re: Dummy's interference Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199810141118.MAA16385@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: B A Small > > > > Another strange one > > > > Called to table by south (West is declarer in 2S and dummy has Q/10.) > > North had lead a club taken in dummy by king and small club to > > declarer's ace leaving dummy void in clubs. Declarer now leads a small > > club aiming to ruff in dummy. North plays king of spades and declarer > > oblivious to the high ruff has her hand poised over the Q/10 trying to > > decide which to play when dummy leans forward and pushes her hand away > > saying "no point". How do you rule ? > > > > Robin Barker: > > I would rule under L45F, on the basis that dummy has suggested not > playing a spade. I inform the players that dummy's suggestion may have > damanged the NOS; I allow play to continue and may assign an adjusted > score at the end of the hand. I imagine that if declarer chooses to > under-ruff there is no damage, otherwise I adjust to the number of > tricks if declarer had under-ruffed. > > Robin > Plus, possibly, a PP to dummy (Laws 43A1c and 90) JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 00:14:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:14:08 +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 AAA10401 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:13:51 +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 AA088584634; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:17:15 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA237244632; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:17:13 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:16:53 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Change of lead 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 Bruce wrote: =20 Declarer (south) is in heart contract with five hearts to Ace in hand= and four to king, queen, jack in Dummy. When gets in leads ace and all follow. Leads low towards king. West follows and East plays small club. Leads Queen from dummy. East now states he has revoked as he has found a heart. Revoke is not established (Law 63) and must be corrected (62A)= which is done and small club becomes major penalty card. Declarer now= asked if she could change her lead as she doesn't need to draw trumps= with queen. Law62c refers to subsequent cards played to trick - which= is not the case. Law 47D seems to be the correct one and is ambiguous enough to cover this situation. I ruled she could replace queen of hearts in dummy and play any other she wanted. Comments? =20 =20 Law 62C reads: C. Subsequent Cards Played to Trick =20 1. By Non-offending Side =20 Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty,= withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it =20 =20 If I just read te text under C1, my ruling would be: HQ was played after the revoke and before attention was drawn to it (but revoke not established). As I read Law 62C, this card may be withdrawn without penalty and Law 16C apllies to the offending side. =20 But the title following C is : Subsequent Cards Played to Trick Gives the impression that this law applies only to cards played to the trick where revoke occured.......?????? =20 I think Law 62C1 must be used anayway. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 00:52:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:52:42 +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 AAA11273 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:52:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA09944; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:55:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009916; Wed Oct 14 09:55:33 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF760.B4453F00@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:52:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF760.B4453F00@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws discussion group , "'Linda Weinstein'" Subject: RE: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:32:35 -0400 Encoding: 58 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Are your puppies willing? Seems unfair to Quango and Nanki Poo to take on this task too. Though I seem to lead rec.bridge.cats in numbers, I can claim only 3 dogs...not pedigreed but each with its own charm. Patches, our oldest, is a white with some grey and blacks (what else) patches part poodle part oops, between toy and minature in size. Rusty is a beagle/bassett mix, very friendly but with a tendency to run. Just back from another 4 days "vacation" via the pound. Nutmeg, our "good dog" is half Chinese chow. Very pleasant, affectionate and well self-trained. As clean as a Toronto subway. Worst habit: Jumps up to kiss you. This "tiny little puppy" my wife brought home is about the size of a boxer. The dogs get along very well with the cats, and have formed special friendships. Rusty grooms Stubby & Bandit frequently and they sleep curled up together. Not a dog/cat fight in years. Do have to be careful the dogs don't slurp up all the cat food though. There! See what you started. :-) Craig ---------- From: Linda Weinstein[SMTP:lobo@ac.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 2:27 PM To: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! Dany wrote: As much as I remember it is your first message ..... The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . Enough is enough!!!! Where are the puppies!!! Mine: Panda - a 9 yr. old goofy black and white Shih Tzu Gus - an 8 yr old adorable Bichon Frise Although I must say I just spent the weekend with my dear friends Bruce and Sue Reeve in Raleigh and they have two not so bad cats... their black and white one, Scotty, that looks just like Socks (the Clintons cat) is a very nice match for my black and white Shih Tzu (even the same size) and their pure white cat, Princess, is a perfect match to my Bichon. All together, they would be a wild bunch. Linda p.s. and who is going to keep our list? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 01:12:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:12:12 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11381 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:12:00 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA28838 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07067 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:15:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810141515.LAA07067@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Mind you, what I have to say about the ACBL permitting the Stop card > not to be a 100% requirement is not fit to print! The stop card, if used at all, is supposed to be used 100% of the time. I believe there is even a specific statement that using it only with preemptive bids is wrong. The ACBL has its problems, but the written regulation in this case is not one of them. (The ACBL does allow players not to use the stop card/skip bid warning at all. David, is that what you meant? I would prefer that use be mandatory, but I can understand the ACBL's position.) Having the regulation enforced may be another story, but at least around here (Boston area), nearly everyone uses the stop card as required. (I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, and I have already complained to the webmaster.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 01:49:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:49:27 +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 BAA11558 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:49:17 +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 LAA30219 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07109 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:52:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810141552.LAA07109@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Linda Weinstein > Here is what the panelists are sent: > 1= hopeless > 2= ok > 3= outstanding Thanks for the explanation. But how can a ruling be "outstanding?" I would have thought "clearly correct and complete" would be the best possible. It may be very misleading simply to average ratings of this sort. (As it happens, I have some professional experience with ratings of a related sort.) Different raters may have different scales, and these have to be normalized in some way for intercomparison to be meaningful. For example, consider a typical ruling with nothing clearly wrong, but maybe the writeup is not quite complete, or maybe there is some factor that might have been overlooked. It probably wouldn't change the ruling, but perhaps it might have. On the other hand, the raters may consider that even an AC has limited time, and nobody can expect perfection. One rater might give such a ruling a top score, meaning the best _practical_ ruling we are likely to see, while another might downgrade it. Rulings that are really about the same might end up with quite different scores. It is, however, hard to suggest a better system except that the criteria for each rating should be spelled out as clearly as possible. And readers should not place too much stock in the averages, especially for any one decision. I am worried that the BoD might be taking the averages too seriously and making decisions based on them. In principle, one could look for trends in the averages, but one has to be very careful that changing makeup of the rating panel doesn't introduce bias. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 02:35:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:35:18 +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 CAA11975 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:35:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTTwa-0006Mx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:38:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:33:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of lead In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > But the title following C is : Subsequent Cards Played to Trick > Gives the impression that this law applies only to cards played to > the > trick where revoke occured.......?????? Please, everyone. The headings are *not* part of the Laws, and while many are quite helpful, some are *not*. This one is known as one of the unhelpful ones! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 02:35:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:35:16 +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 CAA11976 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:35:09 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTTwb-0006Mw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:38:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:31:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810141515.LAA07067@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 >> Mind you, what I have to say about the ACBL permitting the Stop card >> not to be a 100% requirement is not fit to print! > >The stop card, if used at all, is supposed to be used 100% of the time. >I believe there is even a specific statement that using it only with >preemptive bids is wrong. The ACBL has its problems, but the written >regulation in this case is not one of them. (The ACBL does allow >players not to use the stop card/skip bid warning at all. David, >is that what you meant? I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >I can understand the ACBL's position.) Using it only with pre-empts is just bad ethics. However, its use should be mandatory, and that is what I am objecting to. >Having the regulation enforced may be another story, but at least >around here (Boston area), nearly everyone uses the stop card as >required. > >(I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- >protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, >and I have already complained to the webmaster.) I hope so: I am link-checking at the moment and cannot reach the Laws of Bridge! I, too, have sent in a comment. Note first effort is a comment not a complaint: is this because I am a European? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 02:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:40:05 +1000 Received: from pm04sm.pmm.mci.net (pm04sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.153]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12056 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:39:59 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr22-dialup6.mix1.Bloomington.cw.net) by PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27036) with SMTP id <0F0T00KZAT36IK@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:42:45 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:40:41 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: The "C" word To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <002d01bdf791$7a9bee80$461837a6@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 If, for some disturbing reason, anyone actually wants to see the ACBL Disciplinary Code, I have it and will e-mail it. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 02:41:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:41:36 +1000 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12078 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:41:30 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA12339 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:43:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810141515.LAA07067@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >The stop card.... >I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >I can understand the ACBL's position.) I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. While I understand the position that the stop card should be used for EVERY jump, it seems a trivial violation to not use the stop card when responding 3NT to partner's 1NT opening bid. >(I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- >protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, >and I have already complained to the webmaster.) They've also password protected their Orlando NABC page. While I wouldn't put it past the ACBL to restrict access to regulation pages to ACBL members, even the ACBL is smart enough to allow anyone to view advertisement type material. I expect you are right that it is just a glitch. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 03:14:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:14:30 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12244 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:14:19 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-130.access.net.il [192.116.198.130]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA17712; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:17:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3624DC91.1C463AF7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:17:05 +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: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Puuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrr Qungoooooooooooooiiiauuuuu and Nanki Pooooooooiiaaaaaaaaauuuuu Don't be sad , we are the clever managers here , and we'll take care of those nice doggy ..... SHOBO Regards from Kushi David Stevenson wrote: > > Linda Weinstein wrote: > > >Where are the puppies!!! > > >p.s. and who is going to keep our list? > > Snnnnnaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllll !!!!!!!!! > > Not us! > > -- > Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ > quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= > nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 03:31:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:31:00 +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 DAA12372 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:30:53 +1000 Received: from ip22.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.22]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981014173425.RUQF2535.fep4@ip22.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:34:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of lead Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:34:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3627dfb3.3337048@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, 14 Oct 1998 17:33:37 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Please, everyone. The headings are *not* part of the Laws, and while >many are quite helpful, some are *not*. This one is known as one of the >unhelpful ones! Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if necessary corrected. Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the main text, since you would not have to say everything that the headings say once more in the text itself. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 03:40:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:40:19 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12451 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:40:11 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTUxb-00008d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:43:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:37:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! In-Reply-To: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes >Dear Linda ....... and all H-BLML (human....) collaborators > >His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided >to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. >I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care >of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he >got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him >too........ >Ok - now please send here the data for : > >D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > >Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus >Dany Haimovich - Kushi > I've got a Rottweiller and a Yorkie, (my sons) Do they count? Cheers MadDog -- 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 Oct 15 03:40:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:40:29 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12459 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:40:22 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTUxg-0007W4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:43:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:41:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy's interference In-Reply-To: <199810141118.MAA16385@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810141118.MAA16385@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: B A Small >> >> Another strange one >> >> Called to table by south (West is declarer in 2S and dummy has Q/10.) >> North had lead a club taken in dummy by king and small club to >> declarer's ace leaving dummy void in clubs. Declarer now leads a small >> club aiming to ruff in dummy. North plays king of spades and declarer >> oblivious to the high ruff has her hand poised over the Q/10 trying to >> decide which to play when dummy leans forward and pushes her hand away >> saying "no point". How do you rule ? >> > >I would rule under L45F, on the basis that dummy has suggested not >playing a spade. I inform the players that dummy's suggestion may have >damanged the NOS; I allow play to continue and may assign an adjusted >score at the end of the hand. I imagine that if declarer chooses to >under-ruff there is no damage, otherwise I adjust to the number of >tricks if declarer had under-ruffed. > >Robin > Agreed and I would rule on the basis that the under-ruff was with the Q. And I think I'd toss in a PP as well, unless Dummy was a novice. -- 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 Oct 15 03:42:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:42:38 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12494 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:42:29 +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 NAA01482 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810141746.NAA06674@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> (message from Tim Goodwin on Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:43:03 -0400) Subject: Re: The "C" word Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin writes: > At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> The stop card.... >> I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >> I can understand the ACBL's position.) > I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) > myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made > mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. > While I understand the position that the stop card should be used for EVERY > jump, it seems a trivial violation to not use the stop card when responding > 3NT to partner's 1NT opening bid. Tt is a trivial violation, but it should be a violation to avoid gray areas. If 3D in response to 1NT is a diamond preempt, then it is important to remind the opponents of their skip-bid obligation. If 3D is a slam try in diamonds, it is unlikely that the opponents will bid. The warning must be made mandatory so that the failure to give one when bidding 3D doesn't serve to remind opener that 3D is strong. Trivial violations are important when the issue of penalties or warnings come up. When an opponent fails to pause after (1H)-3S, I will probably call the director. When an opponent fails to pause after 1H-(P)-[STOP]3H, I will probably talk to the opponent and not call the director. When an opponent fails to pause after 2C-(P)-2S-(P)-3S-(P)-[STOP]4NT, I won't even mention it (and I do use the STOP card here), although it is a violation in theory. But the rule is there to protect the opposition, and they are entitled to the protection when it is relevant. There was an appeals case (New Orleans #4) in which there was a break of "a bit more than ten seconds" after 1NT-(P)-3NT with no skip bid warning. Opening leader held 86 8752 4 Q97654 at BAM scoring. He chose a spade, which hit partner's long suit, rather than the LA's of a heart or a club. The club would have cost a trick. "The Committee found that North-South assumed a small responsibility for the hesitation. A club lead had to have been made to assure the +460. The Committee believed that East's rationale for choosing not to lead a club was reasonable. The failure to use the STOP card did not create such a liability that a club lead was mandated." -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 05:03:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:03:05 +1000 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12990 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:02:56 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA02309 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981014150432.007c8b80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:04:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810141746.NAA06674@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 PM 10/14/98 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: I understand the rationale that if a stop card is to be used it should be used 100% of the time. What I don't understand: >it is >important to remind the opponents of their skip-bid obligation. Why should they need reminding? If my RHO makes a skip bid I should pause. I should pause regardless of whether a skip bid warning or stop card was used; I should pause whether I was reminded to or not. I don't think it should be right to pause when the stop card was used, but wrong to pause when the stop card was not used. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 05:48:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:48:47 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13273 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:48:41 +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 PAA06115 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810141952.PAA10895@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19981014150432.007c8b80@maine.rr.com> (message from Tim Goodwin on Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:04:32 -0400) Subject: Re: The "C" word Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin writes: > At 01:46 PM 10/14/98 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > I understand the rationale that if a stop card is to be used it should be > used 100% of the time. > What I don't understand: >> it is >> important to remind the opponents of their skip-bid obligation. > Why should they need reminding? If my RHO makes a skip bid I should pause. However, not everyone remembers. Experienced players are expected to pause over an unannounced skip bid, but not everyone is experienced. In a typical club, I would expect 10% of the players to pause over a typical mid-auction skip-bid, and 80% to pause if the STOP card is displayed. That's not right, but it is what happens; most players don't think about their obligation. The example I described was a mid-auction skip bid which made it fairly likely that there would be further bidding: 1NT-(P)-3D preemptive. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 06:59:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:59:19 +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 GAA13623 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:59:14 +1000 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981014210248.SFDZ2535.fep4@ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:02:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:02:48 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <362710ca.1118868@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:43:03 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid = warning) >myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be = made >mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. In Denmark, both are mandatory. I.e., players are obliged to use the stop card, but if a player nevertheless neglects to do so, the pause is still mandatory. However, a player cannot be penalized for inadvertently not pausing if his RHO did not use the stop card. I like those rules. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 06:57:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:57:59 +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 GAA13616 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:57:53 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h54.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA23951; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:24 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3625ABF6.129D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:59 -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: clear rules References: <199810142041.QAA07372@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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:) Steve advised me to send this text to BLML - so I do:) 1. Rules, Laws and Regulations of any sport and its contest first of all should ensure to all the participant equity (equal rights) for win. Such a terms and conditions may be: - executed with as high accuracy as it is possible on current knowledge and/or technical possibilities; examples: - distance for running - starting line for running, jumping etc. - definition of the starting moment for running, skiing etc. - executed within some intervals, quantity of these intervals depends on the very essence of the sport; examples: - weight's intervals in boxing, wrestling etc. - radius's intervals in shooting, bowing Full set of these terms defines so the essence of the sport as rights and obligations of participants for taking part in the contest. This set ensure to the participants equal rights and obligations before contest's start and usually is understood and called as "equal start" principle. By the way seeding - in modern sports with knock-out system of contest (or even with Swiss system) and great number of participants - disturbs "equal start rights". It made rather for growing show interest at final stage... 2. The same Rules, Laws, Regulations describe how contests should be provided, what is right manner of participants' fighting, which doings are forbidden, what is the method of comparing the results and of winner's defining. Examples: - every sprinter should run only on his track - boxers should not strike below opponent's belt - the finishing of participants should be shoot by camera etc. Full set of these terms also defines the very essence of the sport and establishes equal rights and obligations of contestant during the contest. It pointed that during the contest every participants are meeting with the same conditions, procedure etc. - "equal conditions" principle. 3. When we consider the game of bridge as a kind of sport we should agree that both "equal" principles may be met only for separated boards: - there are groups of participants (at the same positions) that are playing the same hands ("equal start") - results of these participants may be compared directly and ranked under certain method ("equal conditions"). Indeed, these conditions are "equal" only approximately because different participants have different opponents (at the same boards) - but it is essential part of the bridge and we hope: the more number of boards are played during the contest - the more equal these conditions become (because every participant will get almost full set of opponents while playing almost full set of boards) During the bridge contest there are played a lot of boards - and final results are function of the boards' results. The method of recounting (summurizing) - via IMP or MP or other - boards' results into final result depends on the kind of contest but any way: board's results are the basement. The nearest similarity: all-round competitions where results in every separated part of this competition are converted into some points, final position of a participant is direct function of the sum of these points. As board's result is basic for defining the final position of participants - so we should protect equity for boards. And there may be two way: - local equity - equity between parties of the table where conflict happened (traditionally understood equity) - integral equity - equity inside line, protecting the field I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for reaching the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for reaching the integral equity, with possible non-balance adjusted score (because integral equity often will be different for opposing lines). And it is TD's authority (under the current Laws) to protect field - even via starting the appeal procedure. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 07:23:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:23:34 +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 HAA13747 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:23:29 +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, 14 Oct 1998 14:27:00 -0700 Message-ID: <362517C8.6C5A08F3@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:29:44 -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: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided > to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. > Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus > Dany Haimovich - Kushi You're not going to beleive this Dany, put you can add the following entry: Jan Kamras - Koushi !!!!!! Indeed, as the name implies, he's black. An original Schipperke (i.e. from Belgium) of abt 14-15 years (my wife found him abandoned and tied to a tree, so age is a vet's estimate). Now what I want to know is this: How *do* you really spell the Hebrew "black" when transposed into english? We figured it would be pronounced better by anglosaxons if spelled our way, but will happily bow to your expertise. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 07:27:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:27:31 +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 HAA13766 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:27:20 +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, 14 Oct 1998 14:30:55 -0700 Message-ID: <362518B2.586CD5D9@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:33:38 -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: Change of lead References: <3627dfb3.3337048@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the > WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be > (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if > necessary corrected. I second this, but would like to switch the order i.e.: a) consider/correct then b)make part of laws From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 08:32:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:32:42 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14113 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:32:36 +1000 Received: from mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.8]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA14955 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:36:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA21099 ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:36:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:36:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: BLML Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > Sorry Marv, but you are wrong about your last statement. With regards to > the revoke law Declarer and Dummy are separate entities. Have a look at > Grattan's 1992 tome "Commentary on the Laws of...." > > 64.10 > > "(i) If declarer rovokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not > deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." Exactly the same point is made in the ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions." Here is a quote from its discussion of Law 64. >> NOTE: When declarer wins a trick in the dummy and revokes in his hand, he is deemed not to have won the revoking trick. << Richard F Beye wrote: > NO, NO, NO - Declarer is not dummy, dummy is not declarer. Tell me this > interpretation doesn't exist here! Richard, it seems that this interpretation/misinterpretation did exist -- both elsewhere and here on BLML before this thread started. The very fact that those two commentaries were written shows that this particular misinterpretation must have appeared several years ago. So it seems the wording of L64A needs some fixing. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 10:58:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:58:50 +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 KAA14679 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:58:41 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-185.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.185]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA994239 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36254A7A.5F125874@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:06:02 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: The "C" word References: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In my experience, unfortunately all American, for all skill levels, especially expert: It has not made much, if any, worthwhile difference [but, imo, it has made a lot bad behavior] in contestants' behavior, whether a skip bid warning is given or not. No director ever adjusted the score even though opponents damaged my side because of failure to have proper tempo after a skip bid. Based on players that have made at least five skip bids in my presence [and many who have made fewer]: fewer than 5% obey the skip bid warning consistently fewer than 5% give the skip bid warning consistently fewer than 1% give the warning in a consistent manner [without at least occasionally adding a mannerism] The first six months I played I thought that not bidding fast was like admitting you were stupid. In particular, I found it highly irritating for the auction to be interrupted with "I am going to make a skip bid, please hesitate 10 seconds". It only reinforced my feelings that if you did not bid fast you were stupid. I now appreciate the fairness that results from good tempo and the mandatory pause after a skip bid. I still feel that a skip bid warning is an interruption, a distraction, and an avenue of proven abuse. I think that Tim Goodwin is on target that a mandatory pause of about 10 seconds ought to be the rule, not the mandatory use of the warning. While I appreciate the purpose of the warning, the history of the skip bid warning, at least in America, has been one of abuse, failure to comply, and a failure to rule appropriately. Right now, there are two big groups of violations- a large group of contestants which give warnings, but not properly. There is also a large group of contestants that do not pause appropriately, warning or no warning. It seems that improper warnings violations would be eliminated if there were no more warnings. That's right, make it easier to use the bidding boxes by removing the Stop Card. And since there would be fewer procedures to mess up then contestants would have more brain power to get the mandatory pause right. Roger Pewick Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > >The stop card.... > > >I would prefer that use be mandatory, but > >I can understand the ACBL's position.) > > I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) > myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made > mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 11:52:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:52:50 +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 LAA14830 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:52:42 +1000 Received: from default (ptp178.ac.net [205.138.55.87]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA14326 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810150156.VAA14326@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:03:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs In-Reply-To: <199810141552.LAA07109@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 10/14/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Linda Weinstein >> Here is what the panelists are sent: >> 1= hopeless >> 2= ok >> 3= outstanding > >Thanks for the explanation. But how can a ruling be "outstanding?" I >would have thought "clearly correct and complete" would be the best >possible. OK - here is exactly what we tell them Directors 1= a poor ruling - no apparant justification 2= an okay ruling - but on a superficial level 3= a completely appropriate ruling Committees 1= a poor decision - missing a key issue 2= an okay decision - but missing something 3= an excellent decision > >It may be very misleading simply to average ratings of this sort. (As >it happens, I have some professional experience with ratings of a >related sort.) Different raters may have different scales, and these >have to be normalized in some way for intercomparison to be >meaningful. For example, consider a typical ruling with nothing >clearly wrong, but maybe the writeup is not quite complete, or maybe >there is some factor that might have been overlooked. It probably >wouldn't change the ruling, but perhaps it might have. On the other >hand, the raters may consider that even an AC has limited time, and >nobody can expect perfection. One rater might give such a ruling a top >score, meaning the best _practical_ ruling we are likely to see, while >another might downgrade it. Rulings that are really about the same >might end up with quite different scores. Yes, I agree with all of the above. We just want something that is quick, fairly straightforward and gives a gist of what the panel as a whole thinks. We use one decimal place because that is what we start with - 1.7, 2.3, etc. > >It is, however, hard to suggest a better system except that the >criteria for each rating should be spelled out as clearly as possible. >And readers should not place too much stock in the averages, especially >for any one decision. I am worried that the BoD might be taking the >averages too seriously and making decisions based on them. The National Appeals Director (LeBendig) has assured me that they won't. He understands and agrees with what you have said. > >In principle, one could look for trends in the averages, but one has >to be very careful that changing makeup of the rating panel doesn't >introduce bias. The makeup of the panel, over the years, has actually been fairly constant. The skill level has sure changed though - I go back and read some of the stuff from 5 years ago and shudder.... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 12:07:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:07:20 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14900 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:07:05 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-32.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.32]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA12628; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3625578B.174D1E01@idt.net> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:01:47 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Weinstein CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda: Can't answer your last question, but whoever does can add Sammy, my 8 month old Yorkshire Terrier to the list. He's about the right size (6-7 pounds, for dealing with our four cats, but is actually more than a match for ALL of them :) Irv Linda Weinstein wrote: > > Dany wrote: > > As much as I remember it is your first message ..... > The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are > cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; > they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . > > Enough is enough!!!! > Where are the puppies!!! > > Mine: > Panda - a 9 yr. old goofy black and white Shih Tzu > Gus - an 8 yr old adorable Bichon Frise > > Although I must say I just spent the weekend with my dear friends Bruce and > Sue Reeve in Raleigh and they have two not so bad cats... their black and > white one, Scotty, that looks just like Socks (the Clintons cat) is a very > nice match for my black and white Shih Tzu (even the same size) and their > pure white cat, Princess, is a perfect match to my Bichon. All together, > they would be a wild bunch. > > Linda > p.s. and who is going to keep our list? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 12:08:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:08:47 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14929 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:08:40 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-32.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.32]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA13170; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362557E4.6356B628@idt.net> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:03:16 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: Linda Weinstein , Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus > Dany Haimovich - Kushi > Irv Kostal - Sammy Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Dear Linda ....... and all H-BLML (human....) collaborators > > His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided > to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. > I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care > of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he > got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him > too........ > Ok - now please send here the data for : > > D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > > Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus > Dany Haimovich - Kushi > > Waiting for the.......dogs , puppies , chr chr chr chr ..... > Dany > > Linda Weinstein wrote: > > > > Dany wrote: > > > > As much as I remember it is your first message ..... > > The MOST IMPORTANT thing - Please inform us if there are > > cats in your house , and if the answer is yes - their names ; > > they will appear on David Stevenson's monthly announcements . > > > > Enough is enough!!!! > > Where are the puppies!!! > > > > Mine: > > Panda - a 9 yr. old goofy black and white Shih Tzu > > Gus - an 8 yr old adorable Bichon Frise > > > > Although I must say I just spent the weekend with my dear friends Bruce and > > Sue Reeve in Raleigh and they have two not so bad cats... their black and > > white one, Scotty, that looks just like Socks (the Clintons cat) is a very > > nice match for my black and white Shih Tzu (even the same size) and their > > pure white cat, Princess, is a perfect match to my Bichon. All together, > > they would be a wild bunch. > > > > Linda > > p.s. and who is going to keep our list? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 14:44:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:44:58 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15528 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:44:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA09442 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810150447.VAA09442@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Change of lead Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:45:02 -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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the > WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be > (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if > necessary corrected. > > Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were > part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the > main text, since you would not have to say everything that the > headings say once more in the text itself. > -- Two troublesome headings are those for L20 (REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS should be REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF AUCTION) and L20F1 (Explanation of Calls should be Explanation of Auction). It is no wonder that people thought asking for an explanation of individual calls was permitted by L20F1, with these misleading headings. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 14:59:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:59:21 +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 OAA15554 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:59:16 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA11324 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810150502.WAA11324@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: The "C" word Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:00:32 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Experienced players are expected to > pause over an unannounced skip bid, but not everyone is experienced. > In a typical club, I would expect 10% of the players to pause over a > typical mid-auction skip-bid, and 80% to pause if the STOP card is > displayed. That's not right, but it is what happens; most players don't > think about their obligation. > Lately I've taken to putting out the STOP card, then waiting a while before making my bid. That enforces a pause. Trouble is, LHO looks at me instead of at his/her hand! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 16:19:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:19:47 +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 QAA15677 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:19:42 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22934 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810150622.XAA22934@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:20:58 -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 Linda Weinstein wrote: > OK - here is exactly what we tell them > > Directors > 1= a poor ruling - no apparant justification > 2= an okay ruling - but on a superficial level > 3= a completely appropriate ruling > > Committees > 1= a poor decision - missing a key issue > 2= an okay decision - but missing something > 3= an excellent decision > > > Yes, I agree with all of the above. We just want something that is quick, > fairly straightforward and gives a gist of what the panel as a whole > thinks. We use one decimal place because that is what we start with - 1.7, > 2.3, etc. > Please explain. Is 1.7, 2.3, etc., something arrived at after averaging the 1-2-3s of the panel, or do they each assign ratings to one decimal point? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 16:22:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:22:05 +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 QAA15691 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:21:59 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06995; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:25:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810141515.LAA07067@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Steve Willner wrote: > (I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- > protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, > and I have already complained to the webmaster.) It is at - http://www.acbl.org/regulations/skipbid.htm Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 17:28:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:28:50 +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 RAA15789 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:28:44 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA08843; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:32:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: David Grabiner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810141746.NAA06674@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, David Grabiner wrote: > Tim Goodwin writes in response to: > > While I understand the position that the stop card should be used for EVERY > > jump, it seems a trivial violation to not use the stop card when responding > > 3NT to partner's 1NT opening bid. [snip] > But the rule is there to protect the opposition, and they are entitled > to the protection when it is relevant. There was an appeals case (New > Orleans #4) in which there was a break of "a bit more than ten seconds" > after 1NT-(P)-3NT with no skip bid warning. Opening leader held 86 8752 > 4 Q97654 at BAM scoring. He chose a spade, which hit partner's long > suit, rather than the LA's of a heart or a club. The club would have > cost a trick. > > "The Committee found that North-South assumed a small > responsibility for the hesitation. A club lead had to have > been made to assure the +460. The Committee believed that > East's rationale for choosing not to lead a club was > reasonable. The failure to use the STOP card did not > create such a liability that a club lead was mandated." I just can't understand this at all. The ACBL Reg requires that experienced players should observe proper tempo [ ten second pause] even if the stop card is NOT used! Was there someone there at the table tolling off the ten seconds like with a fallen boxer? [BANG! ONE - BANG! TWO] Who really knows what is ten seconds? Some count "'thousn-one, 'thousn-two, 'thousn-three..." Others "One thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three..." The latter could easily take 12 real seconds, the former might take 8 real seconds. Looking at a watch is most improper -- one is supposed to study one's hand intently. How does the opponent prove it was 12 seconds instead of 10. Was he staring at his watch? I can hardly believe that this Bridge Lawyer there REALLY called the director to claim a 12 second violation, and so the partner obviously used UI, I need an adjustment!? Besides, why lead a club and hope for 6232 around the table? With not a scintilla of an entry, this seems pretty far fetched. A major lead seems much more appealing through a [probably] major-less dummy. I would issue the maximum amount of new penalty points to him, so that he would be tossed for his next frivolous appeal! Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 17:36:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:36:32 +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 RAA15827 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:36:27 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA09210; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:40:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Tim Goodwin cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981014150432.007c8b80@maine.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > Why should they need reminding? If my RHO makes a skip bid I should > pause. I should pause regardless of whether a skip bid warning or stop > card was used; I should pause whether I was reminded to or not. I > don't think it should be right to pause when the stop card was used, > but wrong to pause when the stop card was not used. You are correct, Tim. See - http://www.acbl.org/regulations/skipbid.htm if the ACBL ever gets its web-site working again, that is. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 21:39:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 21:39:48 +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 VAA16161 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 21:39:41 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-231.uunet.be [194.7.9.231]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00969 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:43:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3625E73D.75199826@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:14:53 +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: Re: Belgian TD day (2) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one seemed to have everyone stumped. At least, when you did not reply, I assume you thought the problem trivial. Only Laurie Kelso wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > South, declarer in 4H, ruffs the second club trick. > > > > South leads the 5 of hearts. > > > > East, not having noticed the ruff, simultaneously leads the club 3. > > > > TD! > > > > (East has hearts) > > The easy part is that East's lead is deemed to be subsequent to South's > (L58A). > Indeed, that's the easy part. > I don't believe that L57A applies since East has not yet > played to the current trick, let alone led to the next one. > I will treat the club 3 as a simple defender's LOOT and deem it a > penalty card. > That is what I, and three TD's before me, did at the table. Jan Boets, apparently on Ton Kooijman's authority, said that indeed L57A should apply and that south should be allowed to ask the highest or lowest from west. Defender has indeed "played out of turn before his partner has played". Comments ? > Laurie -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 22:04:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:04:53 +1000 Received: from smtp03.wxs.nl (smtp03.wxs.nl [195.121.6.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA16281 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:04:46 +1000 Received: from geoff-laptop ([195.121.59.75]) by smtp03.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4E65 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:07:51 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bdf83c$f62e5640$4b3b79c3@geoff-laptop> From: "Geoff Francis" To: Subject: Re: The "C" word Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:40:33 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Tim Goodwin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, 14 October, 1998 18 56 Subject: Re: The "C" word >At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > >>The stop card.... > >>I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >>I can understand the ACBL's position.) > >I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) >myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made >mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. > My understanding is that the pause is mandatory, even if the stop card is not displayed or is replaced before the 10 seconds is up. >While I understand the position that the stop card should be used for EVERY >jump, it seems a trivial violation to not use the stop card when responding >3NT to partner's 1NT opening bid. > >>(I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- >>protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, >>and I have already complained to the webmaster.) > >They've also password protected their Orlando NABC page. While I wouldn't >put it past the ACBL to restrict access to regulation pages to ACBL >members, even the ACBL is smart enough to allow anyone to view >advertisement type material. I expect you are right that it is just a glitch. > >Tim > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 22:04:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:04:56 +1000 Received: from smtp03.wxs.nl (smtp03.wxs.nl [195.121.6.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA16282 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:04:47 +1000 Received: from geoff-laptop ([195.121.59.75]) by smtp03.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB4E65 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:07:53 +0200 Message-ID: <000101bdf83c$f7195280$4b3b79c3@geoff-laptop> From: "Geoff Francis" To: Subject: Re: The "C" word Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:46:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, 14 October, 1998 21 42 Subject: Re: The "C" word >Tim Goodwin writes: > >> At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> The stop card.... > >>> I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >>> I can understand the ACBL's position.) > >> I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) >> myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made >> mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. > >> While I understand the position that the stop card should be used for EVERY >> jump, it seems a trivial violation to not use the stop card when responding >> 3NT to partner's 1NT opening bid. > >Tt is a trivial violation, but it should be a violation to avoid gray >areas. If 3D in response to 1NT is a diamond preempt, then it is >important to remind the opponents of their skip-bid obligation. If 3D >is a slam try in diamonds, it is unlikely that the opponents will bid. >The warning must be made mandatory so that the failure to give one when >bidding 3D doesn't serve to remind opener that 3D is strong. > >Trivial violations are important when the issue of penalties or warnings >come up. When an opponent fails to pause after (1H)-3S, I will probably >call the director. When an opponent fails to pause after >1H-(P)-[STOP]3H, I will probably talk to the opponent and not call the >director. When an opponent fails to pause after >2C-(P)-2S-(P)-3S-(P)-[STOP]4NT, I won't even mention it (and I do use >the STOP card here), although it is a violation in theory. > >But the rule is there to protect the opposition, and they are entitled The rule is to protect the oppostion from claims that there was a quick pass implying no further interest, or alternatively a slow pass implying something. But it is important for the player who makes the skip-bid to prevent the opponents passing UI. So if an opponent fails to pause there is potentially a UI with all its consequences. >to the protection when it is relevant. There was an appeals case (New >Orleans #4) in which there was a break of "a bit more than ten seconds" >after 1NT-(P)-3NT with no skip bid warning. Opening leader held 86 8752 >4 Q97654 at BAM scoring. He chose a spade, which hit partner's long >suit, rather than the LA's of a heart or a club. The club would have >cost a trick. > >"The Committee found that North-South assumed a small >responsibility for the hesitation. A club lead had to have >been made to assure the +460. The Committee believed that >East's rationale for choosing not to lead a club was >reasonable. The failure to use the STOP card did not >create such a liability that a club lead was mandated." > >-- >David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu >http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner >Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! >Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 15 23:10:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:10:26 +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 XAA16586 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:10:21 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.221]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981015131326.BTMD27050@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:13:26 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:10:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdf83d$3fa4cb60$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 Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) >Only Laurie Kelso wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > South, declarer in 4H, ruffs the second club trick. >> > >> > South leads the 5 of hearts. >> > >> > East, not having noticed the ruff, simultaneously leads the club 3. >> > >> > TD! >> > (East has hearts) >> The easy part is that East's lead is deemed to be subsequent to South's >> (L58A). >> > >Indeed, that's the easy part. > >> I don't believe that L57A applies since East has not yet >> played to the current trick, let alone led to the next one. >> I will treat the club 3 as a simple defender's LOOT and deem it a >> penalty card. >That is what I, and three TD's before me, did at the table. OPINION ONLY - This feels like the correct ruling for bridge play, that's what we are trying to accomplish. >Jan Boets, apparently on Ton Kooijman's authority, said that indeed L57A >should apply and that south should be allowed to ask the highest or >lowest from west. > >Defender has indeed "played out of turn before his partner has played". OPINION - A matter of interpretation. Technically correct that we could apply 57A, but in referring to 'The Scope of the Laws' is this what the authors of the laws intend? East clearly thought that he was leading; an error that occurred simulatenously with a legal play, south's lead. East was not really playing prematurely; east was merely leading out of turn, south does not have the opportunity to accept, since his lead is legal; club three a penalty card. This seems to be the error that we must address. He has a penalty card. It's going to take some bridge lawyering to convince me that, while some may argue that 57A can be used here, it is the correct application of the laws. This interpretation may lead to another discussion of interpretation and application. Many have opined about what the LC meant versus what can be read into a law, or sequence of laws, when ruling. Applying 57A in the above case does not feel like 'adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure'. more comments please. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:20:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:20:30 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18976 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:20:20 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-184.access.net.il [192.116.198.184]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA01738; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:23:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3626055C.967D722B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:23:24 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Laws' headings - two questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir Until some recent messages on blml i was sure - very sure - I know what are the headings (the bold words near/under the law's numbers.....). Now I am not .... The two simple questions : What is the formal definition of headings ? How can I distinguish them without 0% of doubt - I = means any novice player/reader ...... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:22:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:23 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18999 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:15 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-184.access.net.il [192.116.198.184]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA02051; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:38 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362605D7.93EBA9C7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:27 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> <362517C8.6C5A08F3@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hau Hau I am not a BIBLE expert , but the origin of Koushi is from the King Solomon's period : the Sheba's Queen citizens were named "Koushi" - the phonetic is "u" and no way "iu" ,so your spelling is better IMHO. Koushi is not the adjective "black" but the definition of Negro or Abyssinian or Ethiopian - it is not so clear-cut , because there is no 100% agreement about the exact anthropological origin of Sheba's queen ...; what is agreed is that in King Solomon's songs , she was described with a ..."very beautiful black skin ...." And now to business - The D-BLML will be published and updated every 20th of a month . Dany P.S. and for cat lovers - just remember SHOBO is responsible too for this list Jan Kamras wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided > > to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. > > > Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus > > Dany Haimovich - Kushi > > You're not going to beleive this Dany, put you can add the following > entry: > > Jan Kamras - Koushi !!!!!! > > Indeed, as the name implies, he's black. An original Schipperke (i.e. > from Belgium) of abt 14-15 years (my wife found him abandoned and tied > to a tree, so age is a vet's estimate). > > Now what I want to know is this: How *do* you really spell the Hebrew > "black" when transposed into english? We figured it would be pronounced > better by anglosaxons if spelled our way, but will happily bow to your > expertise. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:22:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:28 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19005 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:20 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-184.access.net.il [192.116.198.184]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA02077; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362605DD.9645B2BC@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:33 +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: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well John - you decide I have only one question please - who deems to "attach" to Richard ??? Dany P.s. I hope you take it friendly ...... John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici > writes > >Dear Linda ....... and all H-BLML (human....) collaborators > > > >His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided > >to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. > >I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care > >of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he > >got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him > >too........ > >Ok - now please send here the data for : > > > >D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > > > >Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus > >Dany Haimovich - Kushi > > > I've got a Rottweiller and a Yorkie, (my sons) Do they count? > > Cheers MadDog > -- > 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 Oct 16 00:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:52 +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 AAA19029 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:44 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-184.access.net.il [192.116.198.184]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA02134; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:26:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362605F2.2C1C7439@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:54 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Guida CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The "C" word References: <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to our Clubs Jim - clubs are blml C-blml ..and now D-blbml. David Stevenson will update the C-blml list .. Any dogs please ?? Jim Guida wrote: > > Lot's of c-words here, cats, cheating, club, correct, champion, card, call, Oh NO - I object ; don't mix nice word "cat" with all other junks.. > continue, courtesy, confront, circumstance, cause, conviction, compromise > and correct. Which can I be referring to? The main subject you told us is IMO a question of basic non-bridge education , mentality and behavior .... On the other side , it will not be fair to discuss it without being in that room, listening to both sides and having some other data about people involved. Generally speaking , i don't like the opponent's reaction, because it is expected they should be more experienced .... and even if they are right wouldn't behave this way .... About the TD behavior - I can understand his wisdom , not to emphasize a delicate case when not sure what exactly happened... But... there is a doubt in my mind if TD did it by wisdom or by some personal other reasons ; I apologize a=priori if I ...."could have known" if I hurt a TD which really used his wisdom Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:23:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:23:19 +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 AAA19043 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:23:13 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-47.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.47]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA1231462 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36260717.450BD70A@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:30:47 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: The "C" word References: <000101bdf83c$f7195280$4b3b79c3@geoff-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Do I really have this wrong? The mandatory pause after a skip bid is the adopted standard used to rule on whether UI was created. If a player conforms approximately to the 10 second standard , he is deemed to have not created UI. Where the player does not conform, he opens his side to a possible adjustment. However, current practice is that the failure to issue a warning that has been deemed more important. Supposedly, each contestant has their own responsibility to act to his own sides benefit within the rules. Shifting that responsibility from the individual to the opponents [in this case RHO] merely [a] takes bridge from being a real time pursuit settled at the table to [b] an employment act for TDs and ACs which adjudicate claims of the opponents for not protecting the other side's interests due to their breaking the rules. The skip bid warning merely is [supposedly] a tool to minimize the likelihood of there being a UI problem after a skip bid. When it is not used, it becomes the basis for absolving LHO of creating UI when they do not maintain proper tempo after a skip. This shift in responsibility, as noted above, is counter productive Geoff Francis wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, 14 October, 1998 21 42 > Subject: Re: The "C" word > > >Tim Goodwin writes: > > > >> At 11:15 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > > >>> The stop card.... > > > >>> I would prefer that use be mandatory, but > >>> I can understand the ACBL's position.) [s] > >But the rule is there to protect the opposition, and they are entitled > > The rule is to protect the oppostion from claims that there was a quick pass > implying no further interest, or alternatively a slow pass implying > something. But it is important for the player who makes the skip-bid to > prevent the opponents passing UI. So if an opponent fails to pause there is > potentially a UI with all its consequences. > > >to the protection when it is relevant. There was an appeals case (New > >Orleans #4) in which there was a break of "a bit more than ten seconds" > >after 1NT-(P)-3NT with no skip bid warning. Opening leader held 86 8752 > >4 Q97654 at BAM scoring. He chose a spade, which hit partner's long > >suit, rather than the LA's of a heart or a club. The club would have > >cost a trick. > > > >"The Committee found that North-South assumed a small > >responsibility for the hesitation. A club lead had to have > >been made to assure the +460. The Committee believed that > >East's rationale for choosing not to lead a club was > >reasonable. The failure to use the STOP card did not > >create such a liability that a club lead was mandated." > > > >-- > >David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:46:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:46:28 +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 AAA19126 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:46:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA27475; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:49:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.80) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027437; Thu Oct 15 09:49:07 1998 Received: by har-pa2-16.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF828.E0CC2F20@har-pa2-16.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:45:09 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF828.E0CC2F20@har-pa2-16.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws'" , "'mit-dlbc-discuss@mit.edu'" , "'Richard Willey'" Cc: "'rew@ma.ultranet.com'" Subject: RE: Question on psyches Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:35:07 -0400 Encoding: 61 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Richard Willey[SMTP:REW@azure-tech.com] The problem of course, is that psyching is at the very least frowned about by the powers that be. Getting a reputation as a partnership that has pysched in the past is a very bad thing if you expect to get a favorable committee ruling. Hence, optimally psyches should be saved for important occasions. Players should only unleash the serious mojo during a close team match or when you need to cement that last top to win a major event. ###This is a large part of what is wrong wih bridge today. You should bid what your hand, other AI, and your judgement dictate. You should not have to be a bridge lawyer in trying to foresee a committee in every bid. Law 40A is still on the books. We need to fight for it, by using our Law-given right to make what we deem tactically appropriate bids. RW:Of course, some people might construe such a logical process as constituting an agreement about when to psyche, rendering the entire exercise somewhat academic. Question to the mailing list. Does such an agreement simple represent common sense or does it constitute an impropriety? CS###It seems a bad one for two reasons. You should be free to psych any hand if your partner is as likely to be confused as the opponents. If you wave a flag (or have an agreement) that only partner can see "Watch out psych likely" you have a CPU and it is forbidden. It is general bridge knowledge that you will be more likely to psych at green (white vs red) or when needing a swing/top. It is improper to AGREE to psych more frequently against seeded pairs or on the 7th and 13th boards of the session. I make it no secret that I like tactical/psychic bids. I disclose this on my convention card. If appropriate I would gladly verbally alert that our partnership employs frequent psychic bids. Now the opponents have just as good a chance as my partner to field them, and they are legal. If I lose in committee I will at least have another chance to forcefully state this case. The trampling of players' rights is a more serious problem than losing the odd board. Now you have the minority opinion . RW:Is an agreement not to ever psyche improper? CS:###It seems to be a partnership agreement. It should not be concealed. I also think it is foolish. It is like agreeing NEVER to bid 4C to solve the "problem" of when is it Gerber. Richard W:(For extra credit, link the argument above to sportsman like dumping) CS### There is nothing sportsmanlike about dumping. It is one of the most questionable propositions Edgar ever put out. It places the BL's and gamesmen above the bridge players...there's your link. Take you best shot and play to win within the rules...and work after the event to eliminate the sort of revolting conditions of contest that could ever make dumping profitable. Now I'm going to pack up my soapbox and go home. :-) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 00:49:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:49:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19146 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:49:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA01668 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA07966 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:53:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810151453.KAA07966@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Jan Boets, apparently on Ton Kooijman's authority, said that indeed L57A > should apply and that south should be allowed to ask the highest or > lowest from west. Seems 100% clear. South led, then (subsequently by virtue of L58A) East put a card on the table. What excuse is there for not applying 57A? It seems exactly the situation 57A is supposed to address. I must be missing something. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 01:05:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:05:20 +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 BAA19204 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:04:53 +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 LAA02064 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07993 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:08:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810151508.LAA07993@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL skip bid rule X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Because of the discussion and seeming confusion about just what the rule says, here it is. (As Richard says, the ACBL web site is fixed. Chyah says there was indeed a temporary problem, but it should be fixed now. Anybody asked for a password should let her know the exact page you were trying to access.) Skip Bid Warnings ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding: a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait!" b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. 2. Skip Bidder The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder a. All Players When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. b. Experienced Players Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. 4. Questioning After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an appropriate amount of time for study. 5. Failure to Pause When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90). 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. ACBL Board of Directors - November, 1995 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 02:01:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:01:12 +1000 Received: from smtp03.wxs.nl (smtp03.wxs.nl [195.121.6.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19503 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:01:07 +1000 Received: from geoff-laptop ([195.121.58.72]) by smtp03.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA69A2 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:04:12 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bdf85d$fb451ee0$483a79c3@geoff-laptop> From: "Geoff Francis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:01:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It would seem that Ton is right since according to L58A the club 3 "is deemed to be subsequent to it." It is therefore a play before partner and hence L57A applies. If you decide otherwise (thus apply LOOT from L56) then declarer loses an option. If East had led OOT and it was noticed before South played then L56 applies and South can chose his lead based on the knowledge that there is the penalty card. In the case you mention, if you decide on L56 then South no longer has the option of another card. The point of L58A and then L57A is that the card played by the correct player isn't treated as accepting the illegal card but it IS played. I assume that L58A applies even if the cards were not in fact simultaneuos (almost impossible to achieve!?) but South, looking only at his own cards to decide on his lead, doesn't even notice Easts play. So L60A1 doesn't apply - it only applies if South sees Easts play before his own and still plays a card (hard to prove without some verbal statement). So L53C is also relevant. As for the argument "East clearly thought that he was leading; ..." this requires a degree of judgement by the TD. L58A does start with "A lead or play ..." so it doesn't matter what he thought he was doing, the deed was done. Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 02:27:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:27:02 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19579 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:26:54 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA63872 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:30:29 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA20822 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:25:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199810151625.MAA20822@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:25:16, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Problem Temporary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- The ACBL had a consultant install a firewall on the ACBL website server. Consequently, we helped Microsoft to debug its code. The consultant was able to talk to Microsoft on the phone and a get a fix. While the request for a password problem has been fixed, we are still working on why the installation of new code disabled our banners on "stm" pages. Please have a little patience with us. Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 02:39:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:39:28 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19600 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:39:19 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-155.access.net.il [192.116.198.155]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA28867; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:42:42 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362625F3.3B0F40CC@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:42:28 +0200 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: clear rules References: <199810142041.QAA07372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3625ABF6.129D@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Vitold I try to put down my remarks about your "thoughts" in both messages on this thread. I gave a very brief answer some days ago , about Constitution and laws.......... At the philosophical level I agree with your definitions and classifications , as D. Burn started with. Every game/sport is different from the other , but IMHO there are some other "dimensions" which make the difference . I believe that the most important dimension for the bridge game is the "target reaching" , which IMO is the source for most of the bridge laws . I try to explain the "target reaching" by examples : TYPE ONE - Group A against Group B ( group can be 1 member only !!) Soccer is type one - one group- named team - against the other. All ball games - as much as I know are type one Chess is the same - teams or players - one against one. TYPE TWO - All try to get the best result Athletics - is of this type - 123 people throw the disc , who throws to the longest range wins. Shooting - 1234 people shoot 100 bullets to a target , who "puts" the bullets closer to the center wins (by some calculations) Horses' races - 32 horses run , as Athletics....first arrives wins. Bridge contests belong to each of the above types and to both types !!!! maybe a third one ,which probably is the source of many "troubles" and rules which their scope is to save equity. Teams' matches belong to type one and both teams play in total equal environment data : the same boards , the same time etc... This is why IMHO teams' contest is the only one which reflects for 100% the results of play...... Pairs - are NOT really of type TWO - because players don't play the same boards , not against the same opponents , not in same environment (some play in a hot hall , others in a colder one; some of them meet a crazy pair while the others don't play against that pair ; etc. etc. etc....)and many other different "non equal" data ..... This is why the laws try to "keep" equity , redress damage , and so on and so on , but we have more basic troubles : at one table - who is playing against who , for the general results' computation ?? what influence the results' computation when some score adjustments or PP are used ..etc. I am not sure I described it scientific enough because I am busy and upset (not about bridge !) now - and respond to blml as a recreation - but I believe that every TD and not novice players understood my main idea. IMO this is the reason for very complicated - better wording many-linked and iterated - laws and some of them up to a subjective judgment of the TD (or AC) .... I am sure there is possible to partially rewrite the laws in a better form - maybe wording too - but I don't believe they can be shorter or simpler , if we still try to "reach the target" of this game and dealing with it as much as possible as TYPE TWO above...... Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > Steve advised me to send this text to BLML - so I do:) > > 1. Rules, Laws and Regulations of any sport and its contest first of all > should ensure to all the participant equity (equal rights) for win. Such > a terms and conditions may be: > - executed with as high accuracy as it is possible on current > knowledge and/or technical possibilities; examples: > - distance for running > - starting line for running, jumping etc. > - definition of the starting moment for running, skiing etc. > - executed within some intervals, quantity of these intervals > depends on the very essence of the sport; examples: > - weight's intervals in boxing, wrestling etc. > - radius's intervals in shooting, bowing > Full set of these terms defines so the essence of the sport as > rights and obligations of participants for taking part in the contest. This > set ensure to the participants equal rights and obligations before contest's > start and usually is understood and called as "equal start" principle. By > the way seeding - in modern sports with knock-out system of contest (or > even with Swiss system) and great number of participants - disturbs > "equal start rights". It made rather for growing show interest at final > stage... > > 2. The same Rules, Laws, Regulations describe how contests should be > provided, what is right manner of participants' fighting, which doings > are forbidden, what is the method of comparing the results and of > winner's defining. Examples: > - every sprinter should run only on his track > - boxers should not strike below opponent's belt > - the finishing of participants should be shoot by camera etc. > Full set of these terms also defines the very essence of the sport > and establishes equal rights and obligations of contestant during the > contest. It pointed that during the contest every participants are meeting > with the same conditions, procedure etc. - "equal conditions" principle. > > 3. When we consider the game of bridge as a kind of sport we should agree > that both "equal" principles may be met only for separated boards: > - there are groups of participants (at the same positions) that are > playing the same hands ("equal start") > - results of these participants may be compared directly and > ranked under certain method ("equal conditions"). > Indeed, these conditions are "equal" only approximately because different > participants have different opponents (at the same boards) - but it is > essential part of the bridge and we hope: the more number of boards are > played during the contest - the more equal these conditions become > (because every participant will get almost full set of opponents while > playing almost full set of boards) > > During the bridge contest there are played a lot of boards - and final results > are function of the boards' results. The method of recounting (summurizing) > - via IMP or MP or other - boards' results into final result depends on the > kind of contest but any way: board's results are the basement. The nearest > similarity: all-round competitions where results in every separated part of > this competition are converted into some points, final position of a > participant is direct function of the sum of these points. > > As board's result is basic for defining the final position of participants - so > we should protect equity for boards. And there may be two way: > - local equity - equity between parties of the table where conflict > happened (traditionally understood equity) > - integral equity - equity inside line, protecting the field > > I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for reaching > the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for reaching the integral > equity, with possible non-balance adjusted score (because integral equity > often will be different for opposing lines). And it is TD's authority (under > the current Laws) to protect field - even via starting the appeal procedure. > > Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 03:52:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 03:52:13 +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 DAA19702 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 03:52:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18703 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810151755.KAA18703@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (1) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:52:53 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nothing much new here, so hit the delete key if not interested. David Grabiner wrote: > > Elsewhere in the Laws, it is clear that "player" includes dummy. Law 44 > would make no sense if dummy and declarer are the same "player"; for > example, Law 44G would allow declarer to lead from his own hand after > winning a trick in dummy. Law 45A explicitly says, "Each player except > dummy..." > It says the player winning the trick leads to the next trick. It doesn't say the declarer must lead from his hand after winning a trick in dummy. I said the Laws are inconsistent about this. Does declarer win a trick in dummy, or does dummy win the trick? Sometimes dummy is treated as a "player," as in L44, and elsewhere (41D, 42A3, L45B) it is treated as a hand that declarer plays. After the dummy is spread, there are only three players of cards. It stretches the language unnecessarily to personify the dummy's cards into a fourth player. > The definitions do not define "player", but they do define "hand". A > hand is a collection of cards, which does not win a trick; a player wins > a trick with a card from his hand. > If they wanted the word "player" to include a hand that is on the table, they should have defined "player" that way in the definitions. The definition of "hand" is: "The cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining cards thereof." This is the first time I've ever seen it contended that a hand cannot win a trick. Using your logic: Dummy is a collection of cards, which does not win a trick; a player wins a trick with a card from dummy. But you say that dummy is a player! If dummy can be a player, hands can be players. David, unlike the Laws, bridge players use language that is clear and unambiguous. They say things like "second seat opened the bidding" and "third hand played high." Would you tell them that seats don't open and hands don't play cards? Using words this way is known as *metonymy*, a legitimate rhetorical device. Of course the lawmakers could not use this device, as it would be beneath their dignity. Laws have to use formal language, to fit the solemnity of their purpose. Instead, they use "player," even "offending player," for a collection of cards on the table. This personification is also a legitimate rhetorical device, but using the same word in two ways (for a person, for a hand) is confusing. They should use the unambiguous term that bridge players use, namely "hand." Someone wrote: > Exactly the same point is made in the ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions." > Here is a quote from its discussion of Law 64. >> NOTE: When declarer wins a trick in the dummy and revokes in his hand, he is deemed not to have won the revoking trick Just look at that sentence, it reads like nonsense. He won a trick but he is deemed not to have won it. Yeah, I know what was meant, and that it conveys the intent of L64, which we must be careful not to take literally. If L64 were written clearly, using "hand" for "player," the DD point would be unnecessary. The fact that they had to include it is evidence that L64 is confusing to someone who doesn't immediately realize that 13 cards on the table, played by declarer, are also a "player." Another confusing practice is the Laws's treatment of the word "dummy." Sometimes it is the hand on the table, sometimes the player whose hand is on the table, according to the definition section. L45B uses the word in both senses! This is a case in which popular usage is not appropriate for the Laws, which should treat declarer's partner as the dummy, and the cards on the table as dummy's hand. Note that the writer of L45B could not make up his mind on this. In the first sentence it is "dummy" for the cards, and in the last sentence it is "dummy's hand." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 04:20:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:20:23 +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 EAA19839 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:20:17 +1000 Received: from default (user-38lcjs7.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.135]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA07988 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981015142304.006a15cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:23:04 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: References: <199810141515.LAA07067@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:31 PM 10/14/98 +0100, David S. wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> Mind you, what I have to say about the ACBL permitting the Stop card >>> not to be a 100% requirement is not fit to print! >> >>The stop card, if used at all, is supposed to be used 100% of the time. >>I believe there is even a specific statement that using it only with >>preemptive bids is wrong. The ACBL has its problems, but the written >>regulation in this case is not one of them. (The ACBL does allow >>players not to use the stop card/skip bid warning at all. David, >>is that what you meant? I would prefer that use be mandatory, but >>I can understand the ACBL's position.) > > Using it only with pre-empts is just bad ethics. > It is certainly inconsistent with the regulations, but this misuse is generally the result of inadequate education rather than unethical behavior. Obviously I am not including a case where a player might use or not use the card with the _same bid_ to distinguish between relatively strong and weak hands. But the general introduction to and explanation of the stop card, for most players, is in the context of pre-emptive bids, and it is understandable that they might get the false impression that this is the only appropriate use. Clearly the rules require me to use the card always, if at all. But its use in an auction like 1NT-P-3NT is pretty much pro forma. Although I always do use it, even in that situation or the opening 2nt which started this thread, it seems to me a bit OC to get in an opponent's face for failing to use the stop card with a strong opening 2nt. >>(I'd quote the regulation, but the ACBL seems to have password- >>protected its regulation page! I expect it is just a temporary glitch, >>and I have already complained to the webmaster.) > > I hope so: I am link-checking at the moment and cannot reach the Laws >of Bridge! I, too, have sent in a comment. Note first effort is a >comment not a complaint: is this because I am a European? > No, David, it is a cultural habit of the British, which may have evolved as a coping mechanism in response to the tribulations of dealing with various institutions which are less than completely efficient (the health and postal services are rumored to be in these categories). Patience is not a virtue associated with Europeans generally, any more than with Americans. ;-) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 04:31:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:31:03 +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 EAA19899 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:30:57 +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 AA214306472; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:34:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA090216471; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:34:31 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:34:12 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law headings...was Change of lead 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 Jesper Dybdal wrote : =20 I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if necessary corrected. =20 Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the main text, since you would not have to say everything that the headings say once more in the text itself. =20 =20 I had the curiosity to look at the French version of Laws after sendind my first message on this topic. =20 In English, Law 62C heading reads: Subsequent Cards Played to Trick =20 But in french : Cartes jou=E9es apr=E8s la renonce et avant que celle-ci ne soit annonc=E9e et corrig=E9e Free translation Cards played after the revoke and before it is annonced and corrected I understand now why I was sure that the card played by dummy to the next trick may be withdrawn and had never noticed such heading problem. I work mostly with the French version. Somebody in France discovered this heading problem. National bodies all around world have probaly found other mistakes when translating laws. I suppose they send their findings to WBF=85. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 05:00:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 05:00:08 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA19955 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 05:00:02 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA27702 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810151903.MAA27702@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: L91 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:01:03 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am having long back-and-forth discussions with Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* about L90 and L91. In L91, the use of the word "contestant" apparently means that you can't suspend ("for the current session or any part thereof") or disqualify a player only, the entire entry (pair in pair event, team in a team event) must be suspended/disqualifed. Jeff and I disagree on this point. I believe there was some discussion on BLML in regard to ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy about this, with the result that a player disqualified per L91 on ZT grounds also disqualifies his partner and, in a team game, the whole team. Not sure about that, because the ACBL's published regulation doesn't say so. It refers to "offenders" being disqualified per L91, not "contestants." Anyway, I seek answers to these questions: (1) Is the ZT regulation incorrect in its use of the word "offender" instead of "contestant" when applying L91? (2) A partnership formed at the partnership desk goes along for a few rounds, but part-way through the session one of the pair becomes so drunk and disorderly that the TD throws him/her out of the game, per L91. Do the Laws permit the TD to substitute someone who has not seen any hands? I know that this is a commonsense thing to do, but do the Laws allow it? (3) Same obnoxisou drunk, on a six-man team. Can the five-man team continue in the current session of the event after the sixth is thrown out? In other words, is L91 just another law that must not, or need not, be taken literally? Comments will be appreciated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 06:20:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:20:47 +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 GAA20109 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:20:38 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-174.access.net.il [192.116.198.174]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA09192; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:23:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362659D1.BA12A5AE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:23:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law headings...was Change of lead References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Q.inter.net.il id WAA09192 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OOooooooooooops I understand Laval opened this thread , independent from my=20 two questions ...... Now I have a third one !!!!! Is any National committee allowed to change any "letter" from the Laws' book ??? Preface only ?? Headings only..??? Index only ???? =20 As I understood until these days - the Laws define exactly which rules a Zonal and/or Sponsor and/or National organizations are allowed to "adjust" the rules ............. Sir Grattan , please try to answer this one too..... Dany Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >=20 > Jesper Dybdal wrote : >=20 > I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the > WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be > (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if > necessary corrected. >=20 > Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were > part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the > main text, since you would not have to say everything that the > headings say once more in the text itself. >=20 >=20 > I had the curiosity to look at the French version of Laws after sendind > my first message on this topic. >=20 > In English, Law 62C heading reads: >=20 > Subsequent Cards Played to Trick >=20 > But in french : > Cartes jou=E9es apr=E8s la renonce et avant que celle-ci ne soit > annonc=E9e > et corrig=E9e > Free translation > Cards played after the revoke and before it is annonced and > corrected >=20 > I understand now why I was sure that the card played by dummy to the > next trick may be withdrawn and had never noticed such heading problem. > I work mostly with the French version. >=20 > Somebody in France discovered this heading problem. National bodies > all around world have probaly found other mistakes when translating > laws. > I suppose they send their findings to WBF=85. >=20 > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 06:36:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:36:27 +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 GAA20160 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:36:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA14063 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA08271 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:39:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810152039.QAA08271@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L91 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > In other words, is L91 just another law that must not, or need not, > be taken literally? This is another law, I predict, about which David S. and I will disagree. I take the law literally. It gives permission for a TD to penalize or suspend a contestant but does not _deny_ permission to penalize or suspend one player alone. I think it is dubious whether a TD can do that on his own authority, but I don't see any reason an SO cannot provide for single-player disciplinary actions if it wishes. If an SO does this, it would be wise to say when action should be taken against a single player and when against a contestant. David S. will probably say that by failing to grant permission for something, the laws implicitly deny permission. He may, however, agree with this argument: conduct offenses are outside the scope of the laws, and SO's can make whatever arrangements they like to deal with such offenses. Regardless of what an SO _might_ do, I think it would be wise for the norm to be to penalize or suspend the whole contestant. An exception might be made if the two had just met at the partnership desk. After all, the SO itself then bears some responsibility. But if I have agreed on my own to play with some obnoxious idiot, then I can hardly object to being tossed out along with the idiot when he misbehaves. Incidentally, the ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_ does not address this question directly. It uses the word "offender," which certainly sounds like a single player and not a contestant. Does anyone know the official policy of any SO/NCBO on this question? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 07:56:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:56:11 +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 HAA20382 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:56:02 +1000 Received: from modem65.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.193] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zTvQc-0007py-00; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:59:27 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 21:52:14 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Grattan > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? > Date: 11 October 1998 23:31 > > Grattan > > Your thoughts on this thread appear to me to lead (no pun intended) to > a somewhat awkward conclusion. +++ Yes, I think so+++ ================cuts made in places=============== ================but still quite long, sorry =========== The case in point was this: > > Declarer (South) was in a spade contract. A round of clubs was played, > to which all followed. East left his club (which had won the trick) > face up on the table for so long after the others had turned down > theirs that South became confused, and thought that East's card was a > lead to the next trick. So he ruffed it, whereupon West (who had some > clubs left) "overruffed" (since he thought that South had led a spade > to the next trick and was following to the spade that South had led). > > Now: > > >1. The trick is whole when each player has legally contributed > >a card to it. That is Law 44B. > > So far, so good, except that it appears to me that we need a point at > which a trick becomes "complete" as opposed to merely coming into > existence. +++ I consider the trick is whole (and therefore complete, will only ever comprise the four cards) when each player has played a legal card to it.+++ > > >Law 65A states a procedure > >starting from the point at which a trick is complete. (Let us > >not forget that 'A. Completed Trick' is just a heading, not to > >be read as part of the law!) > > That is so, but one assumes that the headings serve some purpose. From > the point of view of defining whether a card is played to the > "current" or the "next" trick, one needs to know when the current > trick is over and the next trick begins. +++ I consider the current trick is over when it is quitted. Turning the card over is quitting in my view, not completing. The next trick begins when a player leads to it. This should be after the previous trick is quitted, but in fact it may be before that - as we have been agreeing - it may also be after not only the quitting of the previous trick but also after some occurrence in the interim which is not part of the play to either of the tricks in question.+++ If one wanted to know that, > the part of the Laws called "Completed Trick" appears to be the > obvious place to look, and I would think that L65A rather than L44B > would be regarded by most as the one that defines when a trick is > complete. If this were not so, Laws 64A and 64B would be amalgamated > rather than separated. +++ My feeble mind has failed to pick your meaning when you cite 64A and 64B. However, I would counsel the risk involved in drawing a conclusion from the failure to amalgamate these two sections. I sometimes think that the points at which items are segregated is not fashioned by the strict rhythm of the dance of reason. On the general point you make I do not think the heading is helpful, I think it might better say 'treatment of a completed trick' or some such; I find nothing in the law to constitute a definition.+++ > > But a trick is > "complete", or so it seems to me, only by agreement of all four > players, which agreement they express by turning their cards face > down. +++Do not agree. The completion of a trick, I say, is a fact not governed by the opinion of players as to whether it is complete. A mechanical matter, to favour the concepts of a distinguished British colleague :-) Turning the cards is quitting a trick that the players believe already complete. +++ > > >2. Note that each time the laws speak they use the word > >'contributed' - this signifies that the card has been put to the > >trick in question, possibly inadvertently as in pulling out two > >cards together or possibly with intent which may include > >inattentively playing twice to the same trick. > > Well, in the case in point, South "inattentively" played to what he > (but nobody else) thought was the next trick. In my view, as a result > of his inattention he ended up playing two cards to the current trick. > The problem may be that this precise situation is a novelty not > envisaged by the lawmakers. In general, a player who plays the first > and fifth cards to a trick has just forgotten that he led to the trick > and is "following suit again" - he has not created the fantasy that > the next trick is already in progress and that someone else has > already led to it. +++ The player who plays first and fifth cards to a trick intends to contribute each of them to that trick. I contest your suggestion that the player who tried to play a card to a trick not yet begun is in this position. I consider that he has inattentively exposed a card; likewise the next player who is also guilty of inattention, and even more maybe should be aware that his partner's unturned card won the previous trick (although he might be confusedly following to RHO's "lead" in his mind - but that is a red herring and not germane to the discussion). The reason I say "exposed a card" is that I do not accept he has contributed the card to the previous trick and there is as yet no subsequent trick to receive it if it is not a lead. So it is just one of the variety of irregular ways that he can think up to display one of his cards.+++ > > >A card is not > >contributed to trick one when the Director establishes that > >it was played in error to a trick two that is not yet started. > > That is certainly what happened in this case; South, thinking that > East had led to trick n+1, ruffed East's card in error. The trouble > was that this induced a further "error" from West. So far, you appear > to me to believe that South's card was not a "contribution" to the > current trick - and indeed it was not, for such was clearly not > South's intent. > > >3. If the Director determines that a faced card was not > >contributed to the previous trick then he has to consider > >whether it was faced as a lead to the next trick, > > > >If he does not deem it led then it is > >simply an exposed card - Law 48 or 49. The use of 'lead' > >and 'led' in the laws implies a purposeful action, facing a > >card with intent to follow to someone else's presumed > >lead is not leading. > > I agree with you. So, South has an exposed card - but he is declarer, > so there is no penalty. ++ agreed++ > > >4. A lead is not invalidated because the previous trick is > >not turned over, or some card of it is not. There is a > >procedural flaw but the lead still stands as a lead. So > >does a subsequent play to that lead. > > Ah. But South's card was not a lead, so West's card was not a > "subsequent play to that lead". One could take the view that West's > card was just another exposed card, which because he is a defender > carries a penalty that South's card does not. ++ Yes++ > In your thinking (and in mine) South's card was not a lead. What, > then, was West's card (since it was not in reality a "subsequent play > to that lead", even though West thought it was)? > ++ See above. It may not be how we would like it to be, but in my opinion that is how it is. My case is never that the laws are ideal, but they are what we live by ++ ++++ Lastly, I would readily accept that the legislators are not so all seeing that they anticipate all the contrivances of players to test the adequacy of the laws. However, the principles of the laws, as laid out in the framing, constitute the net by which the lawmakers hope to catch occurrences unforeseen. The Director, the Appeals Committees, and all the layers of national, zonal and world authority, respond to the players' inventions by discerning how the law may fit to the facts. In which the legislator prays they may be reasonably successful - until in due course he can weave more strands into the net. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 08:25:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:25:23 +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 IAA20543 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:25:17 +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 SAA20052 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA08356 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810152228.SAA08356@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The case in point was this: > > > > Declarer (South) was in a spade contract. A round of clubs was played, > > to which all followed. East left his club (which had won the trick) > > face up on the table for so long after the others had turned down > > theirs that South became confused, and thought that East's card was a > > lead to the next trick. So he ruffed it, whereupon West (who had some > > clubs left) "overruffed" (since he thought that South had led a spade > > to the next trick and was following to the spade that South had led). > From: "Grattan" > +++ The player who plays first and fifth cards to a trick intends > to contribute each of them to that trick. I contest your suggestion > that the player who tried to play a card to a trick not yet begun is > in this position. I consider that he has inattentively exposed a > card... Are we really in the unhappy position of having to divine South's intention in order to rule on a simple, mechanical error? If so, I suggest Grattan take down another note. Personally, I'd have had no problem ruling "fifth card." That is what South has _done_, regardless of what he might have _intended_. Of course L45E forces us to decide intent anyway, so it looks like another entry for the notebook regardless. Why can't we deal with exposed cards according to when and by whom they were exposed, regardless of intent? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 08:37:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:37:41 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20574 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:37:34 +1000 Received: from [207.226.97.55] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27319; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:41:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:40:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is not a National or World rated event, so I hope it's not too trivial for this list. The setting: an ACBL Regional Tournament, Bracketed KOs, 2nd Bracket, Semifinal Match Board 33 (9th board of a 24 board match): None VUL, N (me) dealer: The auction: N E S W P - P (1) - P - 2H (2) All Pass (1) Hesiation by East, who remarked "Sorry, I have no problem" and passed. (In fairness to East, he had Declared a tricky contract the previous board.) (2) West pulled out the 2H card and has it in midair, then realized he was in the passout seat. East told him "It's out, so you have to bid it." Dummy hit with an 11 HCP 2 - 4 - 4 - 3 hand, with four hearts to the Ace (his 11 HCP included another Ace and a scattered Q and a scattered J). I summoned the director and explained the auction with irregularities, neglecting to mention the first hesitation. The opponents agreed to the sequence of events. I postulated that East has LAs to passing partner's 4th suit 2H bid, which, absent the UI caused by the fumbling with the bidding cards, should be opening strength with a good heart suit in general bridge practice. (EW have no agreement concerning 4th seat "weak" 2 openings). Certainly at IMPs some form of game try is logical. The TD noted the situation and advised us to play the hand out, with a result of 2H making 2, 110 for EW. The TD came and took the board, at which point I mentioned the first hesitation, which again was agreed to by the opponents. (At the other table the board was passed out, so EW gained 3 IMPs on the table result). The TD came back to us at the half and explained that he had consulted with other directors and was going to let the table result stand, that West acted as if he thought he were in 3rd seat and his 2H opening was not suggested by East's hesitation. He felt that West's pass was fine! I felt that it should have been adjusted either to Passed Out or perhaps 3H or 4H, down 1 or 2 respectively. We announced our intention to appeal, but this became moot when we lost the match by 19 IMPs. Opinions? Should we have won an appeal if we had pursued one? If so, to what should the score have been adjusted? Peter, who's been reading this list entirely too much for the good of his partner! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 09:13:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:13:09 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20616 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:13:03 +1000 Received: from default (vn-0-27.ac.net [205.138.47.198]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA21378 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810152316.TAA21378@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:23:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs In-Reply-To: <199810150622.XAA22934@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:20 PM 10/14/98 -0700, you wrote: >Please explain. Is 1.7, 2.3, etc., something arrived at after >averaging the 1-2-3s of the panel, or do they each assign ratings >to one decimal point? They assign ratings to one decimal point. Not one just circles 1, 2, or 3 for each of their votes (thought they may for a few in any given set) The time we used a 100 point scale, they were lazy and the ratings were too extreme - lots of 100's, 50's and 0's. This is much better. >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 09:39:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:39:50 +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 JAA20665 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:39:46 +1000 Received: from maths-pc12.maths.utas.edu.au (maths-pc12.maths.utas.edu.au [131.217.60.75]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA16099 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:43:24 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:43:24 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981016104358.32771e34@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: Nitpicking - ACBL skip bid rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder > a. All Players > When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip > bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In > waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an > active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied > during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most > improper. Last time I read a dictionary, to display "disinterest" meant to be unbiased or impartial (i.e. to not have an interest in or expectation of the outcome) rather than the sense intended here of "lacking in interest". I've just looked at the WWWebster Dictionary (http://www.w-m.com/cgi-bin/mweb) and found that as a noun, "disinterest" has the two meanings of 1) "disinterestedness" (which is further defined as "the quality of being objective or impartial") and 2) "lack of interest : indifference". The advantage is not overwhelming, but perhaps in the Land of Litigation, changing the wording to "Any obvious display of lack of interest is most improper." would be appropriate. > 6. Where Used > The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned > games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require > no mandated pause. Rampant Apostrophe Protest - as an adjective indicating possession, "its" is not apostrophised (despite common misusage, and the requirement to apostrophise other nouns when changing the sense to an adjective indicating possession e.g. "the boy's dog"). "it's" is only used as a contraction for "it is". Mark "and I'm a Chemistry student" Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 09:44:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:44:56 +1000 Received: from mail.sb.net (root@mail.sb.net [209.241.234.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20680 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:44:50 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.124 (pool-207-205-159-124.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.124]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA11574; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3626959F.4B7F@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:38:59 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Haglich CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is fairly straight ahead (problem reposted below). (As always with these problems, I assume the poster has his facts correct.) 1. It appears East really had no problem at his first turn. That hesitation probably indicated nothing, and it does not appear that West took advantage. 2. West's fumble is fine. East's comment is inappropriate (call the director) but I admit I might have done the same in a similar situation. Sometimes it's easier to make your own anti-partner rulings. (DWS is screaming, and I'd be annoyed if I were directing, but if I were directing, I'd have more confidence in the fact-finding and rulings.) The main concern with East's comment is that he might not have made it if he had a 4=1=4=4 eight-count. East chose kind of a magic moment to enforce the rules against his partner. If I'm looking at *this* suitable a hand, I think I'd wait for the opponents to scream if partner takes it back, and let them call the director. The director should rule that the bid has been made (this clearly isn't a mechanical error.) 3. Well, it appears everyone at the table knew what the fumble was for. So, there's UI. I personally play 2S as a classic weak 2, 2H as a decent opener with a good 6-carder, and 2D as a very good hand with playability mostly in diamonds. But without an agreement, it's a blind guess as to what it might be. So, I rule UI, and that an LA was available over pass, and that the pass was suggested by the UI. Further, I rule that the LA least suggested by the hesitation was 4H. Since the opps. had a 10-card fit (I think), and the N-S hands appear evenly split (I'm guessing) I won't force 4H doubled off 2, just 4H off 2. I don't know what the level of experience was for your opps. If they were very experienced, I might toy with fining them in addition, but it's tough to figure out a fine with W/L scoring. With VP scoring, I wouldn't have a qualm about taking one away. East has been a bad citizen. In any case, they'd gather a new understanding of the rules. And an understanding of the penalties for violation. Peter, I'm glad you've found the list educational. --JRM Peter Haglich wrote: > > This is not a National or World rated event, so I hope it's not too trivial > for this list. > > The setting: an ACBL Regional Tournament, Bracketed KOs, 2nd Bracket, > Semifinal Match > > Board 33 (9th board of a 24 board match): None VUL, N (me) dealer: > > The auction: > N E S W > P - P (1) - P - 2H (2) > All Pass > > (1) Hesiation by East, who remarked "Sorry, I have no problem" and passed. > (In fairness to East, he had Declared a tricky contract the previous board.) > > (2) West pulled out the 2H card and has it in midair, then realized he was > in the passout seat. East told him "It's out, so you have to bid it." > > Dummy hit with an 11 HCP 2 - 4 - 4 - 3 hand, with four hearts to the Ace > (his 11 HCP included another Ace and a scattered Q and a scattered J). I > summoned the director and explained the auction with irregularities, > neglecting to mention the first hesitation. The opponents agreed to the > sequence of events. I postulated that East has LAs to passing partner's > 4th suit 2H bid, which, absent the UI caused by the fumbling with the > bidding cards, should be opening strength with a good heart suit in general > bridge practice. (EW have no agreement concerning 4th seat "weak" 2 > openings). Certainly at IMPs some form of game try is logical. The TD > noted the situation and advised us to play the hand out, with a result of > 2H making 2, 110 for EW. The TD came and took the board, at which point I > mentioned the first hesitation, which again was agreed to by the opponents. > > (At the other table the board was passed out, so EW gained 3 IMPs on the > table result). > > The TD came back to us at the half and explained that he had consulted with > other directors and was going to let the table result stand, that West > acted as if he thought he were in 3rd seat and his 2H opening was not > suggested by East's hesitation. He felt that West's pass was fine! > > I felt that it should have been adjusted either to Passed Out or perhaps 3H > or 4H, down 1 or 2 respectively. We announced our intention to appeal, but > this became moot when we lost the match by 19 IMPs. > > Opinions? Should we have won an appeal if we had pursued one? If so, to > what should the score have been adjusted? > > Peter, who's been reading this list entirely too much for the good of his > partner! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 09:50:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:50:14 +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 JAA20698 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:50:08 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTxDD-0003T0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:53:44 +0000 Message-ID: <8FPetbApqoJ2Ewvw@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:52:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L91 In-Reply-To: <199810152039.QAA08271@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810152039.QAA08271@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> In other words, is L91 just another law that must not, or need not, >> be taken literally? > >This is another law, I predict, about which David S. and I will disagree. > >I take the law literally. It gives permission for a TD to penalize or >suspend a contestant but does not _deny_ permission to penalize or >suspend one player alone. I think it is dubious whether a TD can do >that on his own authority, but I don't see any reason an SO cannot >provide for single-player disciplinary actions if it wishes. If an SO >does this, it would be wise to say when action should be taken against >a single player and when against a contestant. > I slung a player on a four man team out of a tourney for saying about his opponents after I'd made a UI ruling against him "I don't need to cheat to get good results". I gave him the opportunity to withdraw the remark and he wouldn't, so he left. The other guys on the team were NOs as far as I'm concerned and I gave them a bye for the next round (it was a Swiss) to let them try to find a replacement. Perhaps the Lawyers forget that bridge players are there to play bridge, that they pay our mortgages and should, in general, be treated as best one can. As it happened they didn't find a replacement and withdrew, but I defend my actions to the end. -- 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 Oct 16 09:55:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:55:37 +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 JAA20723 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:55:31 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTxIR-00045r-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:59:07 +0000 Message-ID: <4FOf9fAtvoJ2EwPW@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:57:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Peter Haglich writes >This is not a National or World rated event, so I hope it's not too trivial >for this list. > >The setting: an ACBL Regional Tournament, Bracketed KOs, 2nd Bracket, >Semifinal Match > >Board 33 (9th board of a 24 board match): None VUL, N (me) dealer: > >The auction: >N E S W >P - P (1) - P - 2H (2) >All Pass > >(1) Hesiation by East, who remarked "Sorry, I have no problem" and passed. >(In fairness to East, he had Declared a tricky contract the previous board.) > >(2) West pulled out the 2H card and has it in midair, then realized he was >in the passout seat. East told him "It's out, so you have to bid it." > >Dummy hit with an 11 HCP 2 - 4 - 4 - 3 hand, with four hearts to the Ace >(his 11 HCP included another Ace and a scattered Q and a scattered J). snip so East has a eight loser hand facing a fourth seat weak 2. Why on earth should he bid? 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 Oct 16 11:48:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:48:10 +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 LAA21029 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:48:03 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-12.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.12]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA1801988 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 21:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3626A70C.8B885063@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:53:16 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The first break in tempo may have suggested general values close to a hand worth opening. Opener's 'second thoughts' suggest that they would have preferred to pass and responder's instruction to not take it back certainly influences the auction. The original tempo break made it more appealing to open on a hand that may have otherwise breached Pandora's box since it was much more likely that the opponents would not have the values to compete [ie opening side would have the auction all to themselves] yet caters to the possibility of a magic game when partner has suitable values. Opener's behavior suggested that Pass was a LA. Responder probably did not have the values to carry on if the opponents do not compete. Ruling: responder's pass was appropriate but the opening bid and responder's comment were not. The contract is adjusted to pass out and a penalty of 3 imps for the comment and opener not resisting it. Roger Pewick Peter Haglich wrote: > > This is not a National or World rated event, so I hope it's not too trivial > for this list. > > The setting: an ACBL Regional Tournament, Bracketed KOs, 2nd Bracket, > Semifinal Match > > Board 33 (9th board of a 24 board match): None VUL, N (me) dealer: > > The auction: > N E S W > P - P (1) - P - 2H (2) > All Pass > > (1) Hesiation by East, who remarked "Sorry, I have no problem" and passed. > (In fairness to East, he had Declared a tricky contract the previous board.) > > (2) West pulled out the 2H card and has it in midair, then realized he was > in the passout seat. East told him "It's out, so you have to bid it." > > Dummy hit with an 11 HCP 2 - 4 - 4 - 3 hand, with four hearts to the Ace > (his 11 HCP included another Ace and a scattered Q and a scattered J). I > summoned the director and explained the auction with irregularities, > neglecting to mention the first hesitation. The opponents agreed to the > sequence of events. I postulated that East has LAs to passing partner's > 4th suit 2H bid, which, absent the UI caused by the fumbling with the > bidding cards, should be opening strength with a good heart suit in general > bridge practice. (EW have no agreement concerning 4th seat "weak" 2 > openings). Certainly at IMPs some form of game try is logical. The TD > noted the situation and advised us to play the hand out, with a result of > 2H making 2, 110 for EW. The TD came and took the board, at which point I > mentioned the first hesitation, which again was agreed to by the opponents. > > (At the other table the board was passed out, so EW gained 3 IMPs on the > table result). > > The TD came back to us at the half and explained that he had consulted with > other directors and was going to let the table result stand, that West > acted as if he thought he were in 3rd seat and his 2H opening was not > suggested by East's hesitation. He felt that West's pass was fine! > > I felt that it should have been adjusted either to Passed Out or perhaps 3H > or 4H, down 1 or 2 respectively. We announced our intention to appeal, but > this became moot when we lost the match by 19 IMPs. > > Opinions? Should we have won an appeal if we had pursued one? If so, to > what should the score have been adjusted? > > Peter, who's been reading this list entirely too much for the good of his > partner! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 12:03:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:03:08 +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 MAA21055 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:03:03 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zTzHq-00033y-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: <+Hj+tkAZnqJ2Ewu6@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 03:05:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two In-Reply-To: <3626A70C.8B885063@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3626A70C.8B885063@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes >The first break in tempo may have suggested general values close to a >hand worth opening. Opener's 'second thoughts' suggest that they would >have preferred to pass and responder's instruction to not take it back >certainly influences the auction. > >The original tempo break made it more appealing to open on a hand that >may have otherwise breached Pandora's box since it was much more likely >that the opponents would not have the values to compete [ie opening side >would have the auction all to themselves] yet caters to the possibility >of a magic game when partner has suitable values. Opener's behavior >suggested that Pass was a LA. Responder probably did not have the >values to carry on if the opponents do not compete. > >Ruling: responder's pass was appropriate but the opening bid and >responder's comment were not. The contract is adjusted to pass out and >a penalty of 3 imps for the comment and opener not resisting it. > >Roger Pewick > which law allows you to cancel the 4th in hand weak 2? IMO there is no UI when 2nd seat says nothing to think about. He's told you he's only just started to think about THIS hand. The fourth in hander would have passed if he hadn't been asleep, his table actions suggest it. result stands and genral moan at them for being asleep IMO -- 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 Oct 16 12:26:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:26:24 +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 MAA21095 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:26:19 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06152; 15 Oct 98 19:29 PDT To: blml CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:25:27 PDT." <362605D7.93EBA9C7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:29:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9810151929.aa06152@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You can add our dog, Steffi, to the list. She's half Dachshund, half Yorkshire terrier, about 20 pounds (9 kg), and looks kind of like a small Dachshund with whiskers and pointy ears. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 16:52:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:32 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA21465 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:24 +1000 Received: from [207.226.97.55] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA29732; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:56:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3626959F.4B7F@mindspring.com> References: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:53:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >So, I rule UI, and that an LA was available over pass, and that the pass >was suggested by the UI. Further, I rule that the LA least suggested by >the hesitation was 4H. Since the opps. had a 10-card fit (I think), and >the N-S hands appear evenly split (I'm guessing) I won't force 4H >doubled off 2, just 4H off 2. I like JRM's ruling! :-) Opps didn't seem to be a seasoned partnership, but both were ACBL Life Masters of some sort of flavor (I know, that + $1.29 will get them a cup of coffee). When I asked East how they played 4th seat Weak 2 bids he said "they're despicable", indicating no agreement about them. Actually, 4H off 2 was exactly the adjustment that suggested itself to me, although I could understand 3H off 1 if you give East credit for using a 2NT inquiry and assess the likelihood EW would logically sign off in 3H given the bad suit, minimum hand, and lack of features. Thanks for all the responses. Peter From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 16:55:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:55:51 +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 QAA21483 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:55:44 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-61.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.61]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA1943022 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 03:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3626EF3C.7C0A7AFB@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:01:16 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two References: <+Hj+tkAZnqJ2Ewu6@probst.demon.co.uk> 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 DAA1943022 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --L16A2- when UI is made available=85. When an opponent breaks tempo and says 'I have no problem' he is advising them not to take an inference. When someone breaks hitches for half a second and says 'I have no problem' and on another occasion pauses for 5 [or more] seconds and says 'I have no problem', I do not think that the situations are equivalent. Every year there are hundreds of MPs and IMPs I never get to vie for because partner has broken tempo at their first turn, I do not attempt to work out if they have a problem- so, if my action is not clear cut, I don't make it. In this instance, opener had available to him information that partner probably hand near opening values, and his balk at making his own bid suggests that he, himself would tend to avoid opening the hand in pass out position. All of the starts and stops in the auction tend to bear these conclusions out. And if I knew what the hand was I would likely pass [as well] instead of opening things up for the opponents to successfully compete. If I merely suspect that partner has good values, the likelihood that the opponents will compete drops a lot and therefore dramatically increases the probability that taking a marginal action will be highly successful. Trade responder's Q for a spot card and now you're looking at potential -300 because the opponents will most likely compete successfully. Roger Pewick John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >=20 > In article <3626A70C.8B885063@freewwweb.com>, axeman > writes > >The first break in tempo may have suggested general values close to a > >hand worth opening. Opener's 'second thoughts' suggest that they woul= d > >have preferred to pass and responder's instruction to not take it back > >certainly influences the auction. > > > >The original tempo break made it more appealing to open on a hand that > >may have otherwise breached Pandora's box since it was much more likel= y > >that the opponents would not have the values to compete [ie opening si= de > >would have the auction all to themselves] yet caters to the possibili= ty > >of a magic game when partner has suitable values. Opener's behavior > >suggested that Pass was a LA. Responder probably did not have the > >values to carry on if the opponents do not compete. > > > >Ruling: responder's pass was appropriate but the opening bid and > >responder's comment were not. The contract is adjusted to pass out an= d > >a penalty of 3 imps for the comment and opener not resisting it. > > > >Roger Pewick > > > which law allows you to cancel the 4th in hand weak 2? IMO there is no > UI when 2nd seat says nothing to think about. He's told you he's only > just started to think about THIS hand. The fourth in hander would have > passed if he hadn't been asleep, his table actions suggest it. >=20 > result stands and genral moan at them for being asleep IMO >=20 > -- > 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 Oct 16 17:20:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:20:19 +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 RAA21554 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:20:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18159; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810160723.AAA18159@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Mark Abraham" Subject: Re: Nitpicking - ACBL skip bid rule Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:21:13 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > > 6. Where Used > > The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned > > games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require > > no mandated pause. > > Rampant Apostrophe Protest - as an adjective indicating possession, "its" is > not apostrophised (despite common misusage, and the requirement to > apostrophise other nouns when changing the sense to an adjective indicating > possession e.g. "the boy's dog"). "it's" is only used as a contraction for > "it is". > Not to mention that "require no mandated pause" is redundant. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 22:11:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:11:12 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22226 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:11:04 +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 IAA19294; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016081448.00716108@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:14:48 -0400 To: Dany Haimovici From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Cats Shmats! Where are the puppies!! Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <36243FDD.1B3FDBBE@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:08 AM 10/14/98 +0200, Dany wrote: >Dear Linda ....... and all H-BLML (human....) collaborators > >His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - decided >to answer Linda's challenge , and keep track of the new D-BLML. >I thanked him very much , because he is very busy to take care >of the 4 young Kittens , but he promised me he'll do it - he >got SHOBO's( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreement , he'll help him >too........ >Ok - now please send here the data for : > >D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > >Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus >Dany Haimovich - Kushi > >Waiting for the.......dogs , puppies , chr chr chr chr ..... >Dany Ask Kushi to please put Wendell on his list. Wendell is a 12-year-old Maltese, and gets along very well with all our cats. /eric Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 22:26:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:26:56 +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 WAA22268 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:26:47 +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 IAA19702 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016083052.00716108@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:30:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <199810140712.DAA13341@primus.ac.net> References: <3.0.5.16.19981013185903.56cf1992@mindspring.com> <3.0.5.16.19981013011419.46d745f8@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:20 AM 10/14/98 -0400, Linda wrote: >At 06:59 PM 10/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Thanks, Linda. My main concern was finding a LAW in the BOOK that >>validates your opinion (and mine). It's spelled out quite nicely in ZT >>policy, but an actual law is lacking. > >This only applies to ACBL members, so I hope the rest of you please excuse >our little side discussion here. > >Oh, it's spelled out quite specifically in a document that you may be >interested to know about. Actually, I am quite glad this document exists. >Don't forget, we really are only members of a social organization and I >firmly believe and am glad that our Board has taken the time to create this >document and all its procedures. It really is quite complete. > >It is called the ACBL Code of Disclipinary Regulations. It is in force by >the Board of Directors and is reviewed and updated regularly. Conduct and >Ethics Committees are regularly convened to handle such matters. The >Cadillac of C&E Committees is the Ethical Oversight Committee that is >composed of 20-25 of our most highly respected ACBL members (appointed for >life - this is NOT a political plum committee by any stretch) and acts as >"a disclipinary body in cases of alleged cheating by use of signals, other >unauthorized information, other forms of cheating, or serious breaches of >ethics." Interested indeed, and somewhat taken aback. Linda seems to be telling us that the ACBL holds its members responsible, under threat of disciplinary action, for following a "quite complete" and fully codified secret code of rules which has never been promulgated to the membership; I suspect that the vast majority of ACBL members don't even know it exists, much less what it requires of them. I thought we Americans fought a revolution just to avoid that sort of thing. Apparently, however, the ACBL is a lot less serious about enforcing its code than Linda suggests. Some of the top players in this area (I respectfully decline to admit anything about myself) would be barred from the ACBL for life if the ACBL were truly serious about enforcing their rule against betting on the outcome of their events. If we are being held responsible for following this code, shouldn't we be permitted, indeed encouraged (perhaps even required!?), to get a copy and read it? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 16 23:07:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:07:15 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22369 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:07:07 +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 JAA20730 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016091113.00714e18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:11:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The "C" word In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981014124303.007a4b10@maine.rr.com> References: <199810141515.LAA07067@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:43 PM 10/14/98 -0400, Tim wrote: >I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) >myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made >mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. That is the ACBL rule. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 01:21:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:21:06 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25065 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:20:45 +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 LAA05372 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08798 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:24:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810161524.LAA08798@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > so East has a eight loser hand facing a fourth seat weak 2. > Why on earth should he bid? Because a fourth seat two-bid is not so weak? If undiscussed, I'd expect it to show about six losers. Is usage different at the YC? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 01:47:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:47:47 +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 BAA25122 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:47:38 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA10458 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08836 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:51:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810161551.LAA08836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think Vitold is telling us something very important here, and it is well worth pondering the application of his general principles to bridge. I can't claim all the applications are clear to me. > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > 1. Rules, Laws and Regulations of any sport and its contest first of all > should ensure to all the participant equity (equal rights) for win. Consider a sport where the outcome depends on timing. (Downhill skiing and speed skating come to mind.) Suppose the official clock is irregular, sometimes running fast and sometimes slow. Is that fair? I suppose so in the weak sense that any competitor is just as likely to be helped as hurt, and there is no reason in advance to prefer any particular starting position. On the other hand, in the end, two equal performances may have unequal outcomes, and I hope most of us agree that is undesirable whether we would call it unfair or not. (By the way, there were plenty of real-life examples of the above until electronic timing was introduced. I'm guessing that for most sports that was about 30 years ago, but it certainly was within living memory.) Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness to the extent possible. > By > the way seeding - in modern sports with knock-out system of contest (or > even with Swiss system) and great number of participants - disturbs > "equal start rights". It made rather for growing show interest at final > stage... This is a good point. While seeding based on past performance is justifiable in trials events or to create equal, large pools of contestants, head-to-head seeding is inherently unfair for championship events. Of course there's nothing unfair about seeding a final based on earlier results _in the same event_. > 2. The same Rules, Laws, Regulations describe how contests should be > provided, what is right manner of participants' fighting, which doings > are forbidden, what is the method of comparing the results and of > winner's defining. Seems clear enough. There are lots of applications to bridge, but one is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same infraction will always receive the same ruling. > 3. When we consider the game of bridge as a kind of sport we should agree > that both "equal" principles may be met only for separated boards: > - there are groups of participants (at the same positions) that are > playing the same hands ("equal start") > - results of these participants may be compared directly and > ranked under certain method ("equal conditions"). > Indeed, these conditions are "equal" only approximately because different > participants have different opponents (at the same boards) - but it is > essential part of the bridge and we hope: the more number of boards are > played during the contest - the more equal these conditions become > (because every participant will get almost full set of opponents while > playing almost full set of boards) Right. This requires balanced movements, among other things. > During the bridge contest there are played a lot of boards - and final results > are function of the boards' results. The method of recounting (summurizing) > - via IMP or MP or other - boards' results into final result depends on the > kind of contest but any way: board's results are the basement. The nearest > similarity: all-round competitions where results in every separated part of > this competition are converted into some points, final position of a > participant is direct function of the sum of these points. This is a fine analogy. Think of a bridge event as a decathlon, where points on individual events (boards) are added up. Some boards are about bidding (part score, game, slam, competitive), and others are about play (declarer or defense), and most are a combination. > As board's result is basic for defining the final position of participants - so > we should protect equity for boards. And there may be two way: > - local equity - equity between parties of the table where conflict > happened (traditionally understood equity) > - integral equity - equity inside line, protecting the field "Protecting the field" is controversial, of course. The need for it is clear, but traditionally we have only tried to ensure local equity and let field equity take care of itself. Maybe that isn't a bad approach. Maybe it is the best we can do as a practical matter. But we should know what we are doing and why. > I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for reaching > the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for reaching the integral > equity, with possible non-balance adjusted score (because integral equity > often will be different for opposing lines). And it is TD's authority (under > the current Laws) to protect field - even via starting the appeal procedure. This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? (Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 02:47:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:47:50 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25412 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:47:44 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA29725; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:50:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029673; Fri Oct 16 11:50:15 1998 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF903.14FA2D80@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF903.14FA2D80@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'John R. Mayne'" Subject: RE: ACBL National ACs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:09:31 -0400 Encoding: 16 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: John R. Mayne[SMTP:jrmayne@mindspring.com] [snipping my own further rant here, including amazingly special director rulings, and what other directors did to try to cover.] John you have made some rather harsh criticism of directors with very little in the way of example to support it. Please don't snip this if it is pertinent. If you have examples and evidence to support your "rant" let's hear it. It's not fair to the group of directors you tar with a broad brush to withhold it now that the accusation of collusion and coverup has been advanced. If you have no evidence, of course, then that's a different matter. An apology would seem in order. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 02:47:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:47:19 +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 CAA25405 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:47:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA02636; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:50:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002615; Fri Oct 16 11:50:04 1998 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF903.044830E0@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:46:38 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF903.044830E0@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:57:36 -0400 Encoding: 50 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No we're not. We are obliged to rail against it if we believe it to be rampant stupidity and an abuse of the Law. It requires substantial straining at gnats to consider an alternative that every thinking player would reject at the table to be a logical one. One must twist and pervert the English language to a reprehensible extent. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. We certainly should not passively accept it. We should point out the abuses it engenders and seek to have it amended to conform with the eminently more sensible definitions found in most of the rest of the world...similar to what we had here previously. There was no serious abuse resultant from a sane definition of LA. The current definition in this zone is beneficial only to the sleaziest of BL's and ought to be corrected forthwith. I'm surprised to see you buying into it Steve...especially in the exaggerated example that Marv has given to illustrate the folly of such a policy. Craig ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, October 12, 1998 8:37 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? > From: "Marvin L. French" > Evidently the change from "reasonably suggested" to "demonstrably > suggested" in L16A does not mean that a TD/AC has to demonstrate in > some way that an alternative is logical. This is a bit confused. There are two issues in any UI case: logical alternatives, and "suggested over another." "Demonstrably" deals with the latter, not the former. In other words, does a hesitation "demonstrably" suggest pulling a double? Or does the hesitation suggest leaving the double in or suggest nothing at all? > I do not accept a currently popular ACBL > interpretation, which is that if an AC can come up with an example > hand that would result in the success of an action, then that > action is a logical alternative Given the stringent ACBL definition of LA, this interpretation seems correct to me. If there is a single hand partner could have that makes an action a success, that is enough to "seriously consider" taking that action. The fact that nobody would actually take the action, after consideration, is irrelevant. You may not like this definition of LA (most of the world doesn't!), but we are obliged to live by it as long as it is in effect. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 02:48:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:48:35 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25434 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:48:29 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA29834; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:51:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029795; Fri Oct 16 11:51:01 1998 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF903.32B54300@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:47:56 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF903.32B54300@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Tim Goodwin'" Subject: RE: The "C" word Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:21:57 -0400 Encoding: 17 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@maine.rr.com] I've always been a bit confused about the stop card (or skip bid warning) myself. I don't believe it is the use of the stop card that should be made mandatory, but the pause by the next player that should be mandatory. ### It is the pause that is mandatory. The warning is optional in our zone. I have chosen never to use it for the simple reason that this avoids the chance of penalty if I forget. It is easy to remember to do nothing...almost no memory burden. But I easily could forget to warn on 1N-3N for example. Or on a 2C opener. The pause in such cases is just a needless delay of game anyhow...I would not think it a tempo break to pass either promptly. I do struggle to pretend to be thinking for 10 seconds in such situations only because of the silly requirement. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 02:49:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:49:42 +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 CAA25451 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:49:13 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-163.access.net.il [192.116.198.163]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA13045 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:52:36 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362779C9.5973B728@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:52:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [Fwd: Law headings...was Change of lead] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4509C0AC21DF055C81720EE0" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4509C0AC21DF055C81720EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As Laval wanted - I forward it to all of us --------------4509C0AC21DF055C81720EE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA05324 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:24:01 +0200 (IST) 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 AA027854239; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:23:59 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA279254236; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:23:56 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:23:39 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law headings...was Change of lead Mime-Version: 1.0 To: dhh@internet-zahav.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Q.inter.net.il id PAA05324 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Q.inter.net.il id SAA13045 Hi Dany, Did you receive my answer to this message, sent yesterday and saying that on French WEB, Law 62C heading is an exact translation of the English one and is not like the preliminary French Law book I have=85.?. I intended to send this to list but do not receive it back=85.may be I sent only to you. If yes, would you be gentle enough to send it to BLML. If not, tell me=85 I will made an other try. Laval =20 Objet: Re: Law headings...was Change of lead =20 OOooooooooooops =20 I understand Laval opened this thread , independent from my =20 two questions ...... Now I have a third one !!!!! Is any National committee allowed to change any "letter" from the Laws' book ??? Preface only ?? Headings only..??? Index only ???? =20 As I understood until these days - the Laws define exactly which rules a Zonal and/or Sponsor and/or National organizations are allowed to "adjust" the rules ............. =20 Sir Grattan , please try to answer this one too..... =20 Dany =20 =20 =20 --------------4509C0AC21DF055C81720EE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 02:50:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:50:34 +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 CAA25465 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:50:12 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-163.access.net.il [192.116.198.163]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA13219 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:53:40 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36277A09.59B32833@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:53:29 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [Fwd: Law headings...was Change of lead] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------61D4EF7B69D18829B12450C3" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------61D4EF7B69D18829B12450C3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As Laval wanted I forward this message to the list --------------61D4EF7B69D18829B12450C3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA15736 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:56:59 +0200 (IST) 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 AA003865011; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:56:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA145814939; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:55:39 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:55:16 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law headings...was Change of lead Mime-Version: 1.0 To: dhh@internet-zahav.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Q.inter.net.il id WAA15736 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Q.inter.net.il id SAA13219 More Oooooooooops and apologies The only French version I found on WEB http://web.avo.fr/haffner/arbitre/ reads : " Carte suivante jou=E9e dans la lev=E9e " as Law 62C heading=85 Word by word translation from English I work with a preliminary written French version of Laws and still not have the official French Law book=85..but use ACBL text as well. I dont know who made this correction (may be me =85.) but I am happy to have it=85=85.. and will keep like that=85. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 OOooooooooooops =20 I understand Laval opened this thread , independent from my =20 two questions ...... Now I have a third one !!!!! Is any National committee allowed to change any "letter" from the Laws' book ??? Preface only ?? Headings only..??? Index only ???? =20 As I understood until these days - the Laws define exactly which rules a Zonal and/or Sponsor and/or National organizations are allowed to "adjust" the rules ............. =20 Sir Grattan , please try to answer this one too..... =20 Dany =20 =20 =20 --------------61D4EF7B69D18829B12450C3-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 03:54:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 03:54:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25573 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 03:54:06 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA13924 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA08953 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810161757.NAA08953@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior [referring to the previous ACBL definition of LA, which is the current one in most of the rest of the world] > There was no serious abuse resultant from a sane definition of LA. I'm afraid our recollections on this are grossly different. My impression at the time the definition was changed was that the ACBL-LC wanted to shock the system and stamp out the erroneous judgments that (in my recollection) were pervasive at the time. I expected that after a few years, they would relax the definition to something more sensible but probably not as loose as 25%. It still wouldn't surprise me if that happens. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 04:41:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 04:41:29 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA25694 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 04:40:54 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id OAA07244 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:44:31 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA23246; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810161844.OAA23246@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Disqualified Contestants To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:44:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >>Suppose, on the last board of an event, that a pair is discovered >>to be communicating illegally. There is no doubt about it, they are >>caught red-handed, and will no doubt get thrown out of competitive >>bridge. The TD rules per L91 that they are disqualified from the >>event and the Tournament Committee meets and agrees with the TD's >>decision. >> >>Question: What do you do about their scores and the scores of their >>opponents? I think the philosophy followed should be that they are no longer contestants in the event, and that all boards in which they were involved are to be considered "non-bridge" and thrown out. Nobody seems to have expressed this opinion, and I have no specific "legal justification" for it; it just seems to be the right thing to do, IMHO. >> >>1. In a multi-section two-session matchpoint pair event, where they >>were second in their section in the first session, third in section >>in the second section, and ended up third overall >> >>My opinion: Every one of their results is thrown out, the opponents >>getting average-plus (60%, or their percentage score without the >>board, whichever is greater) on every such deal. All boards which they played are to be converted to sitouts, and disregarded. Both boards and players will likely require factoring. I think this is better than sprinkling avg+'s across the field. >> >>2. Similar event, but IMP-Pairs instead of matchpoint pairs >> >>My opinion: I have no idea. Same. throw the boards out. Players who played the disregarded pair should have their final score factored. Ther players who play the board: If cross-imping and summing, I guess boards will need factoring again. If cross-imping and averaging, then no problem. >> >>3. In a Swiss team win-loss event, where they were 6-1, and the >>last match was a win, tying another 6-1 team >> >>My opinion: All matches that they did not lose are scored as >>losses. That was easy. No, they don't lose their matches - they are disqualified and the match results are vacated. A slight difference in terminology. This is tricky. Is there any reason why we can't factor win-loss scores??? (i.e. if there were 8 matches played, and the 3rd one must be discarded, we multiply the win-loss record by 8/7's). It is too late to change the effect this would have had on pairing of subsequent matches. Perhaps, for harmony's sake, if another team beat them they should keep their win. This may not be the "fairest" in absolute terms, but the alternative would leave bad feelings. >> >>4. In a Swiss team Victory Point event, where they were 6-1 with >>enough VPs for second place >> >>My opinion: They get zero VPs. Opposing teams get 60% of the >>available VPs for their match, or actual VPs won, whichever is >>greater. Same. They dont get 0 vp's. they get "did not finish". The "harmony's sake" solution: opponents get the better of their % score in VP's in all other matches and the result they achieved at the table. >> >>5. In a BAM event, where they won the board on which they were >>caught cheating, and also won the event >> >>My opinion: Every board they played is a loss. All boards thrown out and all scores factored. >> >>6. In a knockout match, which they have lost by 1 IMP, but the size >>of the margin of defeat is a factor in the event >> >>My opinion: I have no idea Why would the margin be a factor? (I am not familiar with such an event). I would give the winners a W. Its too bad about previously eliminated contestants, but those are the breaks. >> >>Other opinions would be appreciated very much, >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >> -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 05:17:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:17:00 +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 FAA25773 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:16:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA19311; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:19:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019291; Fri Oct 16 14:19:29 1998 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDF917.F0CD6AC0@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:16:25 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDF917.F0CD6AC0@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:37:51 -0400 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is not our recollections, but our opinions that differ. The ACBL seemed to think something was "broke" when they tried to fix it...a lot of us disagreed. The fix of the "ain't broke" situation has been another case of the cure being worse than the disease. I sincerely hope you are right that there will be some relaxation...if not to 25% (which was a sensible level) at least to 1/6. Craig ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 9:57 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? > From: Craig Senior [referring to the previous ACBL definition of LA, which is the current one in most of the rest of the world] > There was no serious abuse resultant from a sane definition of LA. I'm afraid our recollections on this are grossly different. My impression at the time the definition was changed was that the ACBL-LC wanted to shock the system and stamp out the erroneous judgments that (in my recollection) were pervasive at the time. I expected that after a few years, they would relax the definition to something more sensible but probably not as loose as 25%. It still wouldn't surprise me if that happens. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 06:06:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:06:56 +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 GAA25865 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:06:49 +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 QAA07298 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016160956.006d4d30@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:09:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? In-Reply-To: <01BDF917.F0CD6AC0@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:37 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Craig wrote: >My impression at the time the definition was changed was that the >ACBL-LC wanted to shock the system and stamp out the erroneous >judgments that (in my recollection) were pervasive at the time. I >expected that after a few years, they would relax the definition to >something more sensible but probably not as loose as 25%. It still >wouldn't surprise me if that happens. Even in the old days, the criterion for an LA was "seriously consider", not actually bid. Inexperienced AC members found it difficult to make the distinction. Too many people thought "I'd bid X, so that's the only logical bid, what's the problem?" 25% was a particularly unfortunate choice. What would happen was that one member of a five-person committee would state that he would consider a particular action to be an LA; the other four would disagee, and the resulting 20% "vote" would fail to meet the 25% threshold. With the new rule, it was clear that if anyone on an AC considered an action an LA, it was to be deemed one. The ACBL, not atypically, used a cannon to kill a mouse. The problem now is that AC members have a hard time distinguishing between an action that a player's peers might "seriously consider" and one that might fleetingly occur to them only to be dismissed without much thought. IMO, if "seriously consider" was taken to mean something along the lines of "Well, I'd never do that on paper, but I might consider doing it under some circumstances" (e.g. an unusually agressive action that you'd seriously consider only if you were shooting for a top, or an unusually conservative action that you'd seriously consider only if your partner was a maniacal overbidder), the ACBL's current definition would be workable. 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 Oct 17 10:35:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:35:57 +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 KAA26444 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:35:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zUKP0-00000a-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:39:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:37:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two In-Reply-To: <199810161524.LAA08798@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810161524.LAA08798@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> so East has a eight loser hand facing a fourth seat weak 2. >> Why on earth should he bid? > >Because a fourth seat two-bid is not so weak? If undiscussed, I'd >expect it to show about six losers. Is usage different at the YC? > Kxx AJTxxx Jxx x should buy it in 2H in 4th seat Anything better would open 1H, depends entirely on your spade holding though. Damian what would you expect? I certainly wouldn't expect 6 losers (7 seems about right) -- 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 Oct 17 14:07:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 14:07:39 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26892 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 14:07:29 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-164.access.net.il [192.116.198.164]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id GAA20390; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:10:40 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362818AC.6A873E54@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:10:20 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Weinstein CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: D-BLML list - last draft References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) collaborators Here is the first draft of the new future famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). Please be kind and sent the data for the first appearance : D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus Dany Haimovich - Kushi Jan Kamras - Koushi Irv Kostal - Sammy Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , Nutmeg Adam Beneschan - Steffi Eric Landau - Wendell His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - will keep track of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreed to help him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Dany P.S. For Nancy - as much as I remember we didn't decide yet for the C-BLML holly day ?????? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 16:44:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:44:46 +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 QAA27271 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:44:40 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA20457; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810170647.XAA20457@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: ACBL skip bid rule Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:44:45 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > Because of the discussion and seeming confusion about just what > the rule says, here it is. > Skip Bid Warnings > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1. How and When Made > Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by > announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one > or more levels of: > a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait!" > b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so > that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining > LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is > replaced in the bidding box. Note the word "should," which makes the skip bid warning optional. > 2. Skip Bidder > The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a > strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The > warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may > assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. Has anyone ever seen such a PP assessed? > > 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder > a. All Players > When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following > the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 > seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests > he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be > studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest > is most improper. And now we have a "must," a stronger word, but failure to show interest is merely "improper." Has anyone ever seen failure to pause treated as a serious violation? > b. Experienced Players > Experienced players are expected to maintain proper > tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. It is expected of no one except those who end up before an AC, where it is expected of everyone. Just look at all the tempo cases involving inexperienced players that come before NABC ACs. I'm not aware of any misused UI that has been condoned on the basis of inexperience. > 4. Questioning > After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still > pause an appropriate amount of time for study. The proper procedure is not to ask questions, but to say "Please explain." (ACBL Alert Procedure, December 1997). Then, if seeking more information, "Would you tell me more about style?" (ACBL Code of Active Ethics (CAE), 16 August 1998). When asked about "style," the CAE says the partner of the bidder must disclose "all inferences, restrictions, and tendencies" related to the Alerted call. Ideally, further questioning, a frequent source of needless UI for the questioning side, becomes unnecessary. It seems strange that the CAE does not require that the Alert explainer offer more information than a few words when explaining the call. Something like "Would you like to know more?" would be appropriate when "a story goes with it." The CAE rightly does not require a voluntary detailed description, since the opponent may not want to hear a recitation of all the nuances conveyed by a call, which may remind the bidder of some forgotten detail(s). By the bye, explaining an Alerted call by naming a convention is improper (ACBL Alert Procedure, 14 November 1997). E.g., one says "Shows five hearts and four spades, minimum or near-minimum opening," not "Flannery." It is embarrassing for some players to admit ignorance about a convention. It's too bad that all the regulations associated with disclosure are not gathered together in one place. That would elmininate a few small contradictions that exist among them. I would like to say "I suggest you ask" when I Alert a call that has an unusual meaning. The ACBL does not require it, so I suppose it would be improper. Might help partner, I suppose. We used to have "Special Alerts" that handled most such calls, but Announcements have lessened the need (e.g., 2D Stayman Alerted, 2D transfer is Announced). > > 5. Failure to Pause > When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the > tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or > procedural penalty (Law 90). UI from undue haste or hesitation is handled by L16A, which makes no mention of PPs, damage or no damage. Extract #7 from WBF LC minutes at Lille: 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*. (My emphasis). I, Cato, take this to mean that the Laws are not to be augmented by those who think they are not sufficient to the purpose. (Snip of 6, handled in the nitpick thread) > > ACBL Board of Directors - November, 1995 > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 17:29:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:29:30 +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 RAA27348 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:29:25 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA24911; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810170732.AAA24911@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: 4S permitted ? Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:30:06 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > Given the stringent ACBL definition of LA, this interpretation seems > correct to me. If there is a single hand partner could have that makes > an action a success, that is enough to "seriously consider" taking that > action. The fact that nobody would actually take the action, after > consideration, is irrelevant. > > You may not like this definition of LA (most of the world doesn't!), > but we are obliged to live by it as long as it is in effect. I guess this refers to the definition "An action that some number of your peers would consider in a vacuum," which (correct me if I'm wrong) Edgar Kaplan said was the interpretation of LA by the ACBL LC. Another statement by EK might be of interest. An editorial of *The Bridge World,* July 1993, included five examples of tempo cases from an NABC. Commenting on one, EK wrote, "In order to allow South to pull after a slow double, the pass must be unreasonable, eccentric, far out." This is the complement of LA, "not LA," which may be of use to those trying to figure what LA means. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 23:08:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:08:17 +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 XAA27898 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:08:10 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.106]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 4542300 ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 09:09:38 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981017091432.007b9350@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 09:14:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: D-BLML list - last draft Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <362818AC.6A873E54@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Dany, Please add Zoe, our pure-bred New Haven Retriever*. She was found as a puppy on the streets of New Haven, CT six years ago by one of our students and my wife and I took her in. She's been the best dog anyone could ever want. :) Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT * The New Haven Retriever is an breed believed to have resulted from the crossing of a Yellow Lab and a German Shepherd. ;) P.S. Our beloved cat Kimba, who came with our house, met his demise last year at the age of 13. He is much missed by all, including Zoe. Zoe never completely understood why Kimba didn't really want to play, but Kimba learned to tolerate her and usually kept his claws in. At 06:10 AM 10/17/98 +0200, you wrote: >Dear all H-BLML (human....) collaborators > >Here is the first draft of the new future famous club !!!! >The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 >will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). > >Please be kind and sent the data for the first appearance : > >D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST > >Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus >Dany Haimovich - Kushi >Jan Kamras - Koushi >Irv Kostal - Sammy >Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , Nutmeg >Adam Beneschan - Steffi >Eric Landau - Wendell > > >His Excellency KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckle - >will keep track of the new D-BLML. >SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) agreed to help him >too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations >with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. > >Dany > >P.S. For Nancy - as much as I remember we didn't decide >yet for the C-BLML holly day ?????? > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 17 23:40:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:40:18 +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 XAA27962 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:40:12 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20612 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 09:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 09:43:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net Reply-To: Richard Lighton To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL skip bid rule In-Reply-To: <199810170647.XAA20457@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > Because of the discussion and seeming confusion about just what > > the rule says, here it is. > > > Skip Bid Warnings > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 1. How and When Made > > Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by > > announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one [snip] > > Note the word "should," which makes the skip bid warning > optional. > If the ACBL are using the word in the sense used by the Laws, then not using the warning is an infraction. For what it's worth, I think that the general wording of the regulation implies that that's what is intended. An older version said that you should use the warning either always or never. [snip] > > > > 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder > > a. All Players > > When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following > > the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 > > seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that > > suggests > > he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be > > studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest > > is most improper. > > And now we have a "must," a stronger word, but failure to show > interest is merely "improper." Has anyone ever seen failure to > pause treated as a serious violation? > The display of disinterest is "most improper," a phrase that implies such action is serious. It is not the same as not pausing. Needless to say, most of us have decided not to bother when LHO passes immediately, especially in auctions where the likelyhood of action by that player is low. > > b. Experienced Players > > Experienced players are expected to maintain proper > > tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. > > It is expected of no one except those who end up before an AC, > where it is expected of everyone. Just look at all the tempo cases > involving inexperienced players that come before NABC ACs. I'm not > aware of any misused UI that has been condoned on the basis of > inexperience. I assert that anyone who plays in an NABC event where he comes before an AC is _not_ "inexperienced." Not a good player, quite possibly, but he has almost certainly played hundreds of sessions. Knowledge of laws and regulations should not be related to skill. > > > 4. Questioning > > After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still > > pause an appropriate amount of time for study. > > The proper procedure is not to ask questions, but to say "Please > explain." (ACBL Alert Procedure, December 1997). Then, if seeking > more information, "Would you tell me more about style?" (ACBL Code > of Active Ethics (CAE), 16 August 1998). When asked about "style," > the CAE says the partner of the bidder must disclose "all > inferences, restrictions, and tendencies" related to the Alerted > call. Ideally, further questioning, a frequent source of needless > UI for the questioning side, becomes unnecessary. > The ACBL Alert procedures add: In all Alert situations, tournament directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law. and Adjustments for violations are not automatic. and When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME. [snip] > > By the bye, explaining an Alerted call by naming a convention is > improper (ACBL Alert Procedure, 14 November 1997). E.g., one says > "Shows five hearts and four spades, minimum or near-minimum > opening," not "Flannery." It is embarrassing for some players to > admit ignorance about a convention. > In the interests of practicality, naming the convention often works better than describing the details. Lebensohl is an obvious case-- assuming that opponent is likely to understand the general intent of the convention by name. Stayman is another. > I would like to say "I suggest you ask" when I Alert a call that > has an unusual meaning. The ACBL does not require it, so I suppose > it would be improper. Might help partner, I suppose. Again, in the interests of practicality, if the opponents are likely to care _now_, I doubt if anyone will complain if you do. If they might care later, a "you really want to ask about this auction" or even an unsolicited explanation before the opening lead (assuming you are declaring) is in order. > > > > 5. Failure to Pause > > When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the > > tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or > > procedural penalty (Law 90). > > UI from undue haste or hesitation is handled by L16A, which makes > no mention of PPs, damage or no damage. But L90A allows a procedural penalty for violating correct procedure. -- 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 Sun Oct 18 01:40:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 01:40:08 +1000 Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00497 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 01:40:00 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id OCPMa19214; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:28:07 EDT To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, timg@maine.rr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: The "C" word 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 10/16/98 12:53:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: << Or on a 2C opener. The pause in such cases is just a needless delay of game anyhow...I would not think it a tempo break to pass either promptly. I do struggle to pretend to be thinking for 10 seconds in such situations only because of the silly requirement. >> Some people open 2C on "silly" hands, which is another whole debate. The pause is appropriate over 2C strong, artificial, and forcing (1) for consistency and (2) to cater to the possibility that the bidding could be contested on distributional hands. Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 02:05:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 02:05:35 +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 CAA00740 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 02:05:29 +1000 Received: from modem82.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.210] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zUYuU-0002Oj-00; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:08:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Dummy's interference Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:55:07 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) --------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Dummy's interference > Date: 14 October 1998 13:15 > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > >> From: B A Small > >> > >> Another strange one > >> \x/ \x/ \x/ > > I imagine that if declarer chooses to > >under-ruff there is no damage, otherwise I adjust to the number of > >tricks if declarer had under-ruffed. > > Not enough. This is one time you hit them with a heavy fine: at least > double standard. > > Basically, despite howls from some members of BLML, I give them a > larger fine if they happen to get no adjustment. > > Normal caveats: if this was a beginner, talk to them severely, not > fine: if a novice [or charming young lady!] standard fine only, nothing > if they lost a trick via adjustment. ++++ He is getting soft in his old age ++++ [G] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 02:05:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 02:05:39 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00739 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 02:05:27 +1000 Received: from modem82.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.210] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zUYuX-0002Oj-00; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:08:59 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Change of lead Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:07:49 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of lead Date: 14 October 1998 18:34 On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:33:37 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Please, everyone. The headings are *not* part of the Laws, and while >many are quite helpful, some are *not*. This one is known as one of the >unhelpful ones! Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be (a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if necessary corrected. Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the main text, since you would not have to say everything that the headings say once more in the text itself. -- ++++ Added to my memory board. But please note I am not necessarily inspired by the method proposed. Am thinking through an alternative format and construction which may or may not lead me somewhere. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 05:18:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 05:18:54 +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 FAA01139 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 05:18:45 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zUbvY-0002aH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:22:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:20:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Law Headings (was Change of Lead) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > >"I have hardly ever known a mathematician >who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) > > >---------- >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Change of lead >Date: 14 October 1998 18:34 > >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:33:37 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >> Please, everyone. The headings are *not* part of the Laws, and while >>many are quite helpful, some are *not*. This one is known as one of the >>unhelpful ones! > >Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the >WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be >(a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if >necessary corrected. > >Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were >part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the >main text, since you would not have to say everything that the >headings say once more in the text itself. I've laid out Law 18 and 19 (I've chosen ones which are non- controversial) in what (to me at least) is a better format LAW 18 BIDS A A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to Proper seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and Form redouble are calls but not bids.) B A bid supercedes a previous bid if it names either To the same number of odd tricks in a higher-ranking Supercede denomination or a greater number of odd tricks a Bid in any denomination. C A bid that supercedes the immediately previous Sufficient bid is a sufficient bid. Bid etc.. LAW 19 DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES A Doubles A1 A player may double only the last preceding bid. Legal That bid must have been made by an opponent, calls Double other than pass must not have intervened A2 In doubling, a player should not state the number Proper of odd tricks or the denomination. The only Form for correct form is the single word "Double" Double etc.. B Redoubles B1 A player may redouble only the last preceding Legal double. That double must have been made by an Redouble opponent, calls other than pass must not have intervened. etc.. C Double or Redouble supeceded etc.. I've always treated the headings as if they were useful marginal annotations and they are of help when searching for a Law but a damn nuisance when one is trying to read it. To me this layout helps both the search and the reading. It would have to be page layout sensitive (not a problem with modern wordprocessors) as the headings (now margins) would need to be on the open edge of the page. -- 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 Oct 18 05:47:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 05:47:51 +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 FAA01199 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 05:47:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07193 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810171950.MAA07193@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: The "C" word Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:10:23 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > Linda wrote: > > >>Thanks, Linda. My main concern was finding a LAW in the BOOK that > >>validates your opinion (and mine). It's spelled out quite nicely in ZT > >>policy, but an actual law is lacking. > > > >This only applies to ACBL members, so I hope the rest of you please excuse > >our little side discussion here. > > > >Oh, it's spelled out quite specifically in a document that you may be > >interested to know about. Actually, I am quite glad this document exists. > >Don't forget, we really are only members of a social organization and I > >firmly believe and am glad that our Board has taken the time to create this > >document and all its procedures. It really is quite complete. > > > >It is called the ACBL Code of Disclipinary Regulations. > >ethics." > > Interested indeed, and somewhat taken aback. Linda seems to be telling us > that the ACBL holds its members responsible, under threat of disciplinary > action, for following a "quite complete" and fully codified secret code of > rules which has never been promulgated to the membership; I suspect that > the vast majority of ACBL members don't even know it exists, much less what > it requires of them. I thought we Americans fought a revolution just to > avoid that sort of thing. > > Apparently, however, the ACBL is a lot less serious about enforcing its > code than Linda suggests. Some of the top players in this area (I > respectfully decline to admit anything about myself) would be barred from > the ACBL for life if the ACBL were truly serious about enforcing their rule > against betting on the outcome of their events. > > If we are being held responsible for following this code, shouldn't we be > permitted, indeed encouraged (perhaps even required!?), to get a copy and > read it? > The ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations (CDR), available on the ACBL website, is meant for those who are involved in disciplinary proceedings. The CDR does, however, include a list of violations ("Grounds for Discipline") that is more complete than can be found (by me, anyway) elsewhere. This Code has been revised annually from 1989-1997, so wide dissemination of it would quickly result in obsolete copies floating around. The CDR is contained within the ACBLScore software. Those without internet access can print it out from there (or ask a TD to do so). ACBL Conduct Regulations, also on the ACBL website, would seem to be the right document for listing offenses, but its list is much less complete. I would like to see a small version of the Laws and a summary of important ACBL regulations included in a booklet given to every new ACBL member, and available for a small charge to other members. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 06:21:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:21:02 +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 GAA01254 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:20:55 +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 QAA28638 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:24:32 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA20172 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:23:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199810172023.QAA20172@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:23:28, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? Do we need to modify some laws? Or do the SOs just need to adopt some new regulations like we do for screens. If only regulation changes/additions are needed, what do you think they need to cover? Some ideas to consider: Dealing the hands, identification of players, alerting regulations, procedures to report suspected unauthorized information, procedures to investigate and resolve such reports, etc. Kent Burghard, ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 07:13:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:13:17 +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 HAA01341 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:13:12 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.45.98]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981017211620.GMQX22773@jay-apfelbaum>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:16:20 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "MR KENT V BURGHARD" , Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:15:26 -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 Modern programming gives us some options, but I suspect that most, if not all, of the players will consider them oppressive at the least. For simplicity, on-line service refers to the bridge provider (OK Bridge, etc.), and not to the ISP (AOL, etc.). First and foremost there is the problem of hand security. For club and informal play, this point is not particularly sensitive. There is little at stake. However, for serious play hand security is one of the core issues separating on-line from at-the-table bridge. I have some suggestions that could solve the problem. To cover telephone and other types of non-computer communication, each contestant should sign a statement they will not engage in this activity. This is possible as part of the sign-on process. In addition, they could electronically sign an authorization for release of telephone records (and other, similar records). If a contestant comes under investigation, the sponsor could use the authorization to check telephone records (and other, similar records). To cover computer uses, each contestant would have to agree to download and use a computer monitoring software program. Such things are available. The contestant will have to run the monitoring program in the background. The program creates a record of all computer activity during the time the contestant is on-line. The record must be sent to the sponsor at the end of the session. Any repeated failure to do so is considered sufficient for suspension from play. The record is fed into a computer for analysis. Any record of inter-computer communication other than the on-line bridge play (e-mail, ICQ, etc.) would be grounds for disqualification and suspension. This does not cover communication for those who live together. To maintain hand security, those who live together must register so. The sponsor will have to maintain a common record of their play so that one cannot play a hand, then tell the other before the other plays the same hand. However, I see no alternative to prohibiting these two people from playing together in serious play. Suggestions to accomplish this last objective would be welcome. One other problem to cover is when one person plays on another's account. I suggest that every player (subscriber or not) be given a player number. This number follows the player, not the subscriber. When someone signs on (their account or as a guest), the on-line provider asks who is playing. The subscriber can give their own number (stored on the computer is OK), which is then checked against the on-line service's player records. If someone is not a subscriber, they have to identify themselves. Failure to do so can result in punishment to the subscriber. If the guest signs on through different subscriber accounts, the on-line service can confirm identity through their own records. The penalty for any violation (even most minor) would have to be extraordinary. That is because of the difficulty in proving any charge. I would suggest a monetary fine (to cover expenses of investigation) and suspension for at least 3 years. As for the rules. I suggest a kibitzer be permitted to see only one player's hand. Further, if they see any hand they are no longer permitted to converse with anyone in the room until that hand is over. Any kibitzer who sees any hand is no longer permitted to kibitz at any other table engaging in serious play (rest of session). They may not even enter a room. All conversation must be through the on-line service and may be reviewed for content. For the players, conversation also must be through the on-line service and may be reviewed for content. Another rule change is in control of alerts. A player alerts, then chooses from a list of available explanations. Standardization should help. Also, player alerts for both opponents, but partner does not receive the alert or explanation. Question from one opponent about the alert goes only to the alerter, not the opponent's partner. Answer to the question likewise. Miscellaneous item. Any person who leaves during a hand, regardless of fault, is deemed to have conceded the rest of the tricks. If during the auction, they get an automatic zero. It is doubtful that one hand (however disastrous) will significantly affect that players rating. The rule is needed to prevent people from "crashing" their own connection to avoid a bad result. Other rule changes could be needed as experience warrants. These rule changes are designed for serious play. The bridge provider will have to allow each player to choose whether they want to engage in "serious" play. For tables not so engaged, there will be no rating of results. There could (and should) be monitoring of results at all tables to disclose any patterns of possible cheating. As the saying goes, "you asked for it." :)) Jay Apfelbaum -----Original Message----- From: MR KENT V BURGHARD To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 4:30 PM Subject: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations >OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? > >Do we need to modify some laws? Or do the SOs just >need to adopt some new regulations like we do for >screens. If only regulation changes/additions are needed, >what do you think they need to cover? > >Some ideas to consider: Dealing the hands, identification >of players, alerting regulations, procedures to report >suspected unauthorized information, procedures to >investigate and resolve such reports, etc. > >Kent Burghard, >ACBL Headquarters > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 15:20:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:20:09 +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 PAA02385 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:20:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA11793 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810180523.WAA11793@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 22:19:20 -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 Karen Allison wrote: > > > 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. > Right on. In rubber bridge a player throws any unplayed cards (after a claim or concession) face up in the middle of the table. If neither opponent notices the revoke, too bad. Tossing the cards face down is unethical. In duplicate a player turns such cards face up on the table before slowly restoring the entire hand to the board. Same principle. If my partner does not do this in a rubber bridge game, I may turn his cards face up if I suspect a revoke. In a duplicate game, I ask to see what cards he/she had left. However, I just glance at them without showing much interest. I certainly do not call attention to any revoke. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 15:51:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:51:32 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02448 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:51:25 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-175.access.net.il [192.116.198.175]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id HAA11462; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:54:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362982A1.1E72D55@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:54:41 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MR KENT V BURGHARD CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations References: <199810172023.QAA20172@mime4.prodigy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir Some people (Robin Wigdor , myself , Bill Seagraves and...) started to deal with it . Now Bill Seagraves has a very advanced set of proposals for on-line version of Laws . I suggest to contact him and try to promote his work ........ The main ideas and the main items are : 1. There shouldn't be any "mechanical" faults , so half of the rules - dealing with these subjects should vanish. 2. The NET troubles produce impossible situations when you can't judge if there was hesitation, change of tempo etc... or improper behavior (leaving the table, .....etc..) 3. The Alert regulations should be very clear and even improved by the electronic program...... 4. The "by-side" communication between partners.... 5. There should be a "full disclosure" for players , not only of bidding and play ...! 6. "Recording" bad behavior and doing some world-wide educational propaganda or whatever. There are some other minor items , but again I suggest that Bill will go on to develop the final version , as official. Dany MR KENT V BURGHARD wrote: > > OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? > > Do we need to modify some laws? Or do the SOs just > need to adopt some new regulations like we do for > screens. If only regulation changes/additions are needed, > what do you think they need to cover? > > Some ideas to consider: Dealing the hands, identification > of players, alerting regulations, procedures to report > suspected unauthorized information, procedures to > investigate and resolve such reports, etc. > > Kent Burghard, > ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 18 22:24:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:24:04 +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 WAA02819 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:23:55 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.66]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 4902400 ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:25:20 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981018083019.007bf650@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:30:19 -0400 To: burghard@prodigy.comx (MR KENT V BURGHARD) From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199810172023.QAA20172@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:23 PM 10/17/98 -0500, you wrote: >OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? Hi Kent, I'm on my way out, so I'll have to brief, but just to get the ball rolling: The first question, in my view, is what kind of online bridge one wants to handle. There are at least three distinct types of competitive online bridge which need to be considered: 1) Supervised tournaments closely resembling current f2f tournaments. 2) Sanctioned tournaments, such as the weekly ACBL masterpoint games on OKbridge, played with a director present. 3) Unsanctioned open play, such as the weekly competive play on OKbridge. While there are several issues common to all three types of online bridge, there is clearly a graded difference relative to f2f play and a graded need for adjustment of the laws. The first type of play, in principle, may be conducted under the present laws, pending resolution of the question of whether it is permissable or desirable for the software to prevent procedural irregularities. The last type of online play, open play in the absence of a director, clearly requires substantial modification of the laws. In the absence of a director, there is a need to establish an alternative means for dealing with infractions, and there are a number of communication-related issues associated with the possibility of illegal private communication. In addition, there are a significant number of other areas in which internet bridge has, by necessity or by consensus, diverged from f2f bridge. Over the past year, Robin Wigdor and I have been developing a set of internet bridge laws governing internet bridge play in the absence of a director. It is my view that it is both desirable and feasible to maintain conditions of play which are fundamentally similar to f2f tournament bridge, and that a well-designed set of internet bridge laws will ultimately serve to enhance the game of bridge by making internet bridge players more aware of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge and the principles embodied within and carefully preserved within those Laws. As a separate, but related question, I have also extensively researched issues of alerts and disclosure in internet bridge, conducting polls, tests, discussions etc., and am in the process of developing a document outlining my recommendations concerning alerts and disclosure. More to come on both subjects. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 01:08:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:08:57 +1000 Received: from ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (ligarius-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05413 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:08:48 +1000 Received: from default (d22.dial-3.blk.ma.ultra.net [146.115.113.86]) by ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id LAA05632; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362A0500.7AE6@ma.ultranet.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:10:56 -0400 From: richard willey Reply-To: rew@ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JApfelbaum@ma.ultranet.com CC: MR KENT V BURGHARD , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations References: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Japfelbaum wrote an interesting letter to the bridge-laws mailing list asking about how the Laws of Bridge might need to change to support on-line play in an environment like OKBridge or the Microsoft Game Zone. I'm going to steer clear of some of Jay's more controversial suggestions like granting the ACBL the authority to tap phone lines. Instead, I want to focus on a somewhat less controversial topic area; disclosure about information about bidding systems and specifically about the interaction of convention cards and alert structures. For the benefit of David Stevenson, at the moment I am concentrating on established partnerships. The first comment that I am going to make may be a controversial one. I believe that the standards that define the amount of information that players are expected to provide is a function of the technology set that is commonly available to players. An alert standard that might be considered onerous in the absence of automation, might suddenly be made trivial by an improvement in user interface design or a breakthrough in communications technology. If we consider face to face bridge, I think that we all are in agreement that it is impossible to provide the opponents with perfect information about partnership agreements. For example, convention cards are intended to be one of the primary methods to communicate basic information to the opponents. "Physical" convention cards suffer from a number of common problems that are all related to one simple fact. The "flat" text structure that is enforced by the printed page is not an efficient communications media. Printed pages are limited in size, which in turn, intrinsically limits the amount of information which can be presented. There is an obvious trade off between the number of lines of text resented and point size. The more information you write, the less legible the text and the more difficult it become to search for the appropriate piece of information. Hypertext documents are a better type of media to organize complex sets of information. The media type itself allows writers to provide more information while ensuring an intelligible and legible presentation. This is particularly true when the information that is being presented can logically be grouped using hierarchical relationships. (A bridge bidding system certainly fits this description.) I believe that players in an environment where hypertext convention cards are available should be held to a higher standard with relation to the amount and type of information that they provide. In a similar fashion, as improvements in computer technology continue to expand the ways in which information can be provided and drive down the "cost" presenting information, that the standards governing alerting and convention cards need to adapt as well. Simply put, as new applications such as Mike Mardesich's OKScript are developed, the alert standards need to change as well. In his original letter, Jay posted the following suggestions. > Another rule change is in control of alerts. A player alerts, then chooses > from a list of available explanations. Standardization should help. Also, > player alerts for both opponents, but partner does not receive the alert or > explanation. Question from one opponent about the alert goes only to the > alerter, not the opponent's partner. Answer to the question likewise. I've spent a fair amount of time attempting to define what I believe are a reasonable set of alert requirements given the current state of technology. (As a bit of background information, I am a senior product manager for GN Nettest, a high tech firm that designs networking testing equipment. I have extensive experience with providing product specifications for Windows based applications and GUIs.) If I were in the process of designing an on-line bridge application, I would attempt design the following basic components for an interlinked alert/convention card structure. From my perspective, providing the opponent's with a well-organized presentation of system information requires a three part application, all of which reference a common convention file. The first part of the application is a pre-alert text string that is automatically transmitted to the opponent's as soon as the convention file is loaded or a new player seats themselves at the table. The pre-alert string is designed to provide the opponents with concise summary of the most important parts of the system. As an example, playing Blue Team Club, the pre-alert string might be the following. "Hello, we're playing Blue Team Club. Canape means that with 2 suited hands we TYPICALLY bid the short suit first 1C = 17+ HCP unbalanced, 18+ HCP balanced (Control showing responses) 1N = Conventional: Either 16-17 HCP balanced OR 13-15 HCP with 3334/3325 shape 1M = 12-16 HCP, 4 card major, canape 1D = 12 - 16 HCP, 3+ diamonds, canape 2C = 12-16 HCP, single suited with clubs/15-16 HCP, two suited with clubs 2D = 17-24 HCP, any 4441/5440 shape" While I have selected to display an pre-alert string for Blue Club, a relatively uncommon systems, precisely the same type of information should be provided regardless of whether the partnership is playing Standard American Yellow Card, ACOL, or Bridge World Standard. The second part of the application is an auto-alert system. The autoalert system is designed to monitor the bidding sequence that is taking place and automatically transmit appropriate alert strings. For example, playing BTC, if a player were to open 1H, the following hypertext string would be automatically sent to the opponents. "4+ hearts, 12-16 HCP, might have a longer second suit" The third part of the application is a hypertext based convention card. The hypertext card is designed to present a complete system description including the structure of opening bids, response structures, and suggested defenses to unusual openings. By clicking an autoalert string, a player is automatically moved to the appropriate section of that pairs convention card. The hypertext convention card allows the opponent's to have an easy method to understand the structure of the bidding system as a whole, as well as a summary of the response structures that are available to the partnership at different points in the auction. This provides opponents with the opportunity to grasp many of the negative inferences available by examining responses which were NOT chosen. As an example of a simple hypertext card, consult http://www.ultranet.com/~rew/paisley.html If you accept my argument that the standards for information exchange through alerts and convention cards should necessarily be a function of the available technology, than the next step should be clear. Perhaps the most valuable service which the WBF (or for that matter the ACBL or EBU) could provide for on-line bridge would be to attempt to develop a standardized convention card/alert application and provide this source code to the different developers of on-line bridge applications. By doing so, the WBF would be able to ensure the development of a common alerting standard that would be used across all types of internet bridge. Furthermore, the development of this type of convention file is relatively labor intensive. Ideally, it should be possible to use an identical convention file on any one of a number of different bridge servers without rebuilding the wheel. It is at this point in time, when the ACBL is in the process of negotiating with Microsoft and OKBridge to allocate on-line masterpoints that the Bridge rules bodies have the leverage to be able to attempt to standardize the industry on this type of measure. Otherwise, the existing rules bodies risk the possibility of incompatible alerting standards evolving in different on-line playing environments, further fracturing the on-line bridge community. Richard Willey ACBL member 8064857 Hrothgar on OKBridge From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 01:22:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:22:48 +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 BAA05442 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:22:37 +1000 Received: from user-37kbm5p.dialup.mindspring.com (user-37kbm5p.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.185]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15765 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by user-37kbm5p.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFA89.FE9E6960@user-37kbm5p.dialup.mindspring.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:25:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDFA89.FE9E6960@user-37kbm5p.dialup.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:19:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay has evidently put a lot of quality thought into his suggestions, but = for me the biggest difficulty is characterized by the oxymoron in his = final paragraph: "serious play". Of course the very existence of our = little forum is testimony to the power of that idea, but my experiences = with on-line bridge lead me to believe and hope that a different model = might well apply in that environment.=20 The computer environment certainly provides some big advantages over the = world of table bridge, including many that improve the odds that the = game will be played according to the rules. The most obvious advantage = is in the elimination of the usual glitches (revokes, plays and bids = OOT, insufficient bids, etc.) along with the more serious headaches of = fouled boards and even entire movements which constitute the average = director's daily muddle. The computer also provides a much better = environment with respect to most of the issues of UI and MI which occupy = so much of our attention on BLML.=20 But ultimately the issues of integrity and security in "serious" games = cannot be solved so long as such contests involve people who are not = under the physical supervision of game officials. Jay has attempted to = identify some technological patches in some areas, but these are largely = inadequate. Software monitoring programs can always be outfoxed by those = with programming skills. Identification schemes will be easily overcome, = at least until people are willing to submit to on-line retinal scanning = or handprint ID's. Even with access to people's telephone records, there = is no way to assure that players are not availing themselves of = extra-legal resources, including experts who will sit next to the player = during the competition (perhaps for the right fee) or computerized = bridge-playing "experts", which will ultimately outclass their = protoplasmic forebears just as they have in chess. I think the correct approach to the challenges raised by on-line bridge = is to recognize and accept that no "serious" competition can be played = in the present environment, if by "serious" we mean a contest in which = all contestants can safely be assumed to be abiding by the rules. = Frankly, that's alright by me. I really enjoy playing on OKBridge, and = if some tiny minority of Bozos are so concerned about their Lehman's = that they are willing to cheat to win, I can live with that in exchange = for the comfort and convenience of playing from home. To forbid couples = in the same household from playing together in some vain effort to = improve the integrity of the competition would impinge on many folks' = legitimate enjoyment of the process with little commensurate gain. I do think on-line bridge could, in the future, serve as an appropriate = forum for more "serious" competition. The key is to develop centers = under the auspices of SO's and staffed with appropriate personnel where = contestants can go to participate in on-line tournaments. These of = course can be connected to each other so that games could span arbitrary = geographic areas. In this setting, the computer and telecommunications = resources could be controlled, as could the conduct of the contestants. = This approach could assure the integrity of the competition while = maintaining most of the advantages that we enjoy from on-line bridge. Mike Dennis Jay wrote: Modern programming gives us some options, but I suspect that most, if = not all, of the players will consider them oppressive at the least. For simplicity, on-line service refers to the bridge provider (OK Bridge, = etc.), and not to the ISP (AOL, etc.). First and foremost there is the problem of hand security. For club and informal play, this point is not particularly sensitive. There is little = at stake. However, for serious play hand security is one of the core issues separating on-line from at-the-table bridge. I have some suggestions = that could solve the problem. To cover telephone and other types of non-computer communication, each contestant should sign a statement they will not engage in this = activity. This is possible as part of the sign-on process. In addition, they could electronically sign an authorization for release of telephone records = (and other, similar records). If a contestant comes under investigation, the sponsor could use the authorization to check telephone records (and = other, similar records). To cover computer uses, each contestant would have to agree to download = and use a computer monitoring software program. Such things are available. = The contestant will have to run the monitoring program in the background. = The program creates a record of all computer activity during the time the contestant is on-line. The record must be sent to the sponsor at the end = of the session. Any repeated failure to do so is considered sufficient for suspension from play. The record is fed into a computer for analysis. = Any record of inter-computer communication other than the on-line bridge = play (e-mail, ICQ, etc.) would be grounds for disqualification and = suspension. This does not cover communication for those who live together. To = maintain hand security, those who live together must register so. The sponsor = will have to maintain a common record of their play so that one cannot play a hand, then tell the other before the other plays the same hand. However, = I see no alternative to prohibiting these two people from playing together = in serious play. Suggestions to accomplish this last objective would be welcome. One other problem to cover is when one person plays on another's = account. I suggest that every player (subscriber or not) be given a player number. = This number follows the player, not the subscriber. When someone signs on = (their account or as a guest), the on-line provider asks who is playing. The subscriber can give their own number (stored on the computer is OK), = which is then checked against the on-line service's player records. If someone = is not a subscriber, they have to identify themselves. Failure to do so can result in punishment to the subscriber. If the guest signs on through different subscriber accounts, the on-line service can confirm identity through their own records. The penalty for any violation (even most minor) would have to be extraordinary. That is because of the difficulty in proving any charge. = I would suggest a monetary fine (to cover expenses of investigation) and suspension for at least 3 years. As for the rules. I suggest a kibitzer be permitted to see only one = player's hand. Further, if they see any hand they are no longer permitted to = converse with anyone in the room until that hand is over. Any kibitzer who sees = any hand is no longer permitted to kibitz at any other table engaging in = serious play (rest of session). They may not even enter a room. All conversation must be through the on-line service and may be reviewed for content. For the players, conversation also must be through the on-line service = and may be reviewed for content. Another rule change is in control of alerts. A player alerts, then = chooses from a list of available explanations. Standardization should help. = Also, player alerts for both opponents, but partner does not receive the alert = or explanation. Question from one opponent about the alert goes only to the alerter, not the opponent's partner. Answer to the question likewise. Miscellaneous item. Any person who leaves during a hand, regardless of fault, is deemed to have conceded the rest of the tricks. If during the auction, they get an automatic zero. It is doubtful that one hand = (however disastrous) will significantly affect that players rating. The rule is needed to prevent people from "crashing" their own connection to avoid a = bad result. Other rule changes could be needed as experience warrants. These rule changes are designed for serious play. The bridge provider = will have to allow each player to choose whether they want to engage in = "serious" play. For tables not so engaged, there will be no rating of results. = There could (and should) be monitoring of results at all tables to disclose = any patterns of possible cheating. As the saying goes, "you asked for it." :)) Jay Apfelbaum From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 03:27:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 03:27:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05826 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 03:27:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA06760 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810181730.KAA06760@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:27:41 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > For > example, convention cards are intended to be one of the primary methods > to communicate basic information to the opponents. "Physical" > convention cards suffer from a number of common problems that are all > related to one simple fact. The "flat" text structure that is enforced > by the printed page is not an efficient communications media. Printed > pages are limited in size, which in turn, intrinsically limits the > amount of information which can be presented. There is an obvious trade > off between the number of lines of text resented and point size. The > more information you write, the less legible the text and the more > difficult it become to search for the appropriate piece of information. Perhaps off-subject, but the purpose of the CC is to present a "comprehensive overview" of a pair's system. It is not meant to provide detailed disclosure of a partnership's agreements, and hence does not "suffer" from its inability to do so. With oral explanations of one's auction readily available to the opponents, the CC is adequate to its purpose. It "suffers" from attempts to make it do more than is necessary, either by crowding too much printed material on it (as the ACBL has done) or by scribbling illegible details in the blank spaces. I have no doubt that CCs are inadequate for on-line bridge, where obtaining information from an opponent is less convenient. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 06:44:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:44:31 +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 GAA06197 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:44:25 +1000 Received: from default (d21.dial-3.blk.ma.ultra.net [146.115.113.85]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id QAA14875 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362A53A0.51C7@ma.ultranet.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:46:36 -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: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations References: <199810181730.KAA06760@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: > Perhaps off-subject, but the purpose of the CC is to present a > "comprehensive overview" of a pair's system. It is not meant to > provide detailed disclosure of a partnership's agreements, and > hence does not "suffer" from its inability to do so. With oral > explanations of one's auction readily available to the opponents, > the CC is adequate to its purpose. It "suffers" from attempts to > make it do more than is necessary, either by crowding too much > printed material on it (as the ACBL has done) or by scribbling > illegible details in the blank spaces. > > I have no doubt that CCs are inadequate for on-line bridge, where > obtaining information from an opponent is less convenient. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of convention cards, alert structures, and the like is to provide appropriate information to the opponents. The specific technologies which are available serve to refine what types of information should be provided. In a case of a "physical" convention card, the intrinsic limitations of the technology limit the information which can be provided. The signal to noise ratio is much lower for this medium than for a hypertext based system. As technology advances and new methods of organizing and representing information become available, I see no reason why we should continue to be constrained by the earlier limitations. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 08:04:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:04:42 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06406 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:04:34 +1000 Received: from [207.226.96.7] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07216; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:08:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:59:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: The Twitch Finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My experience at our local Regional has been illuminating in the context of the Bridge Laws. I've only been an ACBL member for 2 years and I've only attended the equivalent of 3 full regionals and 10 full weekend sectionals, so I'm still learning the finer points of the proprieties and ethics. Here's one that happened in the Flight A1/A2 Open Pairs last night. Declarer (to my left) won the Diamond Ace in hand lead a small diamond from hand to a Dummy with KJ9xx, looking for the Q (which was at this moment stiff in my hand, over the Dummy) My partner played a medium diamond spot and we began a long wait, perhaps 60 seconds or more in length. Maybe he was mentally calculating the probability tables, or perhaps he was waiting for divine inspiration, but I suspect he might have been looking for a twitch or some other sign to help him decide on the finesse or the drop. Questions: (1) Is this proper? (2) Assuming this is improper, what does one do about it? I know, a TD should be involved in this somehow, but when should we summon him? I really didn't want to give the show away by acting interested. The rest of the story: I sat like a rock. Finally he called for the J and I won my Q anyway. Thanks for any responses, Peter From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 10:10:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:10:03 +1000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06639 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:09:56 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id SMIZa18748; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:12:07 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:12:07 EDT To: pbigfoot@pinn.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse 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 << (1) Is this proper? (2) Assuming this is improper, what does one do about it? I know, a TD should be involved in this somehow, but when should we summon him? I really didn't want to give the show away by acting interested. >> I believe this is proper and would assume that declarer is simply trying to work out percentages. If he is trying to get a reading on you, well, my best advice is that he who talks first loses - therefore, say nothing, perhaps you both might fold your cards and simply wait for declarer to make his play. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 11:06:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:06:00 +1000 Received: from pm06sm.pmm.mci.net (pm06sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06755 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:05:54 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr2-dialup42.mix1.Bloomington.cw.net) by PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #U2935) with SMTP id <0F1100NHNV724D@PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:09:04 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:08:15 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000901bdfafc$f9d30260$6a1337a6@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 Karen wrote: >I believe this is proper and would assume that declarer is simply trying to >work out percentages. If he is trying to get a reading on you, well, my best >advice is that he who talks first loses - therefore, say nothing, perhaps you >both might fold your cards and simply wait for declarer to make his play. I learned from watching Ron Andersen in this position: He would fold his cards, close his eyes and seem to be asleep. You might beat him, but you weren't going to get a read on him. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 12:20:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:20:20 +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 MAA06853 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:20:14 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:34 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:01 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse 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 My opinion on this is that it is an inappropriate action. I would make the same assumption that declarer is trying to work out percentages, but surely declarer should do this before leading from hand? If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably look at 74C7. With regard to Karen=27s solution, just be wary on how you do it=21 (see law 74C6). Now I guess I should answer Peter=27s question on when to call the TD. Probably when the trick has been completed or after declarer has made the play from dummy (in other words, as close to the infraction as possible). Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> 19/10/98 11:12:07 >>> I believe this is proper and would assume that declarer is simply trying = to work out percentages. If he is trying to get a reading on you, well, my = best advice is that he who talks first loses - therefore, say nothing, perhaps = you both might fold your cards and simply wait for declarer to make his play. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 14:26:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:26:47 +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 OAA07013 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:26:42 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn5p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.69.91]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10562 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:30:24 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:30:24 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199810190430.OAA10562@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: The Twitch Finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 19/10/98 +1100, Simon Eidler wrote: >My opinion on this is that it is an inappropriate action. I would make >the same assumption that declarer is trying to work out percentages, >but surely declarer should do this before leading from hand? >If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably >look at 74C7. With regard to Karen's solution, just be wary on how >you do it! (see law 74C6). I hope this isn't just an Australian interpretation but I also think this action is quite inappropriate. Declarer is entitled to take into account defender's hesitations or mannerisms (at his own risk), but I don't think this type of discovery play is ethical. It is quite a different matter when defenders lead through your KJ (say) and you may wish to take some time to consider where the points are, and how good the defenders are. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 18:56:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:56:32 +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 SAA07457 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:56:23 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-43.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.139]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA28668; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 03:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362AED08.DEF41943@idt.net> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:40:56 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Haglich CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had this experience once when defending a 6S slam (it turns out to be another queen of spades story!). Declarer was QUITE competent, partner and I were rising, but not quite there yet players, when he won the opening lead, lost an ace to partner, won the return, cashed the spade honor in dummy and led a spade toward his hand. When I followed suit, he now sat for about two-three minutes. After a while, I became irritated, and decided (since I didn't have the queen) to look nervous, so I dropped my matches while lighting my cigarette. Meanwhile, partner was also getting irritated, so scratched her head, "accidentally" flashing a red card from the place where she had played the previous spade. Declarer went for the finesse, and was the only player in the room to not make the contract! I'm not sure that WE were perfectly ethical in this little transaction, but I never did manage to feel repentant! Irv Peter Haglich wrote: > > My experience at our local Regional has been illuminating in the context of > the Bridge Laws. I've only been an ACBL member for 2 years and I've only > attended the equivalent of 3 full regionals and 10 full weekend sectionals, > so I'm still learning the finer points of the proprieties and ethics. > > Here's one that happened in the Flight A1/A2 Open Pairs last night. > Declarer (to my left) won the Diamond Ace in hand lead a small diamond from > hand to a Dummy with KJ9xx, looking for the Q (which was at this moment > stiff in my hand, over the Dummy) My partner played a medium diamond spot > and we began a long wait, perhaps 60 seconds or more in length. Maybe he > was mentally calculating the probability tables, or perhaps he was waiting > for divine inspiration, but I suspect he might have been looking for a > twitch or some other sign to help him decide on the finesse or the drop. > > Questions: > > (1) Is this proper? > (2) Assuming this is improper, what does one do about it? I know, a TD > should be involved in this somehow, but when should we summon him? I > really didn't want to give the show away by acting interested. > > The rest of the story: > > I sat like a rock. Finally he called for the J and I won my Q anyway. > > Thanks for any responses, Peter From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 19:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:40:05 +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 TAA07513 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:39:57 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F1200KAEJ0IVX@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:43:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA11195; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:41:04 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:41:03 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: 2D permitted ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F1200KAFJ0IVX@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Collegaes, There were enough reactions on the problem of "4S permitted". Most of the reactions agreed that PASS was a LA. Now I got the following : West S Q10976 W N E S H -- 1S 1NT ..! p D AK7643 2D C A3 At the end of the bidding EW played 3S-1. After the play NS asked me if 2D was permitted after the long pause (2 minutes) of E before East Doubled (!). I asked W why he opened 1S. He told me that his bidding was not correct, he had to open 1D. They don't play canape. 1D-opening means at least 4-card diamond. He also told me that he always would bid 2D, because he was afraid that his partner would start Spade and that is what he does not want. What do you think, is PASS a LA after the double (..!) ?? Evert. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 22:09:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:09:43 +1000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07782 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:09:36 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id EGZYa13872; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4972ef5e.362b2c7b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:11:39 EDT To: bigfoot@idt.net, pbigfoot@pinn.net Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse 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 had this experience once when defending a 6S slam (it turns out to be another queen of spades story!). Declarer was QUITE competent, partner and I were rising, but not quite there yet players, when he won the opening lead, lost an ace to partner, won the return, cashed the spade honor in dummy and led a spade toward his hand. When I followed suit, he now sat for about two-three minutes >> Well, the most amazing ploy I've ever seen by a good player against a weak pair was in a money IMP game in Paris in the mid-sixties. Declarer and dummy both knew that the trump queen would be the problem on the hand. Dummy put his cards down with trumps on his left (deliberately was the consensus of those who later discussed the hand). The weak player with the queen (naturally VERY interested in the dummy's trump holding) not only checked out the trump suit - she MOVED it to the right location. Declarer made no mistake about who had the queen of trumps but since the defender had five of them, even his first-round finesse (!) wasn't enough. Consequently, I repeat my advice - don't make any comments when you have the card declarer is looking for - Ron Anderson's model is just fine.. fold your cards if declarer takes a long time whether you have the card in question or not. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 23:44:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:44:23 +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 XAA08133 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:44:16 +1000 Received: from user-38lc40h.dialup.mindspring.com (user-38lc40h.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.17]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA18247 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by user-38lc40h.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFB45.6F707C80@user-38lc40h.dialup.mindspring.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:47:07 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDFB45.6F707C80@user-38lc40h.dialup.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "BLML (E-mail)" Subject: RE: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:46:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I might like to know the vulnerability and scoring, but off-hand, I = would allow the 2D call. Is passing a LA? Perhaps in ACBL-land, although = even there I would say not. Not even close by EBU rules, IMO. But more = to the point is that the protracted hesitation does not demonstrably = suggest bidding over passing. What does the hesitation indicate? Only = that which we may reasonably infer from the double itself, which is to = say partner has a good hand, but no way to determine whether 1NT doubled = is apt to be superior to alternative strains. Does partner hold a = balanced 11- or 12-count, or a slightly weaker hand with a long suit he = hopes to run (hearts, we can assume), or conceivably even a spade fit? = Probably one of these, else what can he be doubling on? But the = hesitation doesn't point to one of these over the others.=20 In fact, I think it rather likely that pard holds 6 goodish hearts, say = KQTXXX and a side A or K, but this inference is based on my own hand and = the bidding, and is not particularly informed by the hesitation. Michael S. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: E.Angad-Gaur [SMTP:evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl] Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:41 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 2D permitted ? Collegaes, There were enough reactions on the problem of "4S permitted". Most of = the reactions agreed that PASS was a LA. Now I got the following : West S Q10976 W N E S H -- 1S 1NT ..! p D AK7643 2D C A3 At the end of the bidding EW played 3S-1. After the play NS asked me if 2D was permitted after the long pause (2 = minutes) of E before East Doubled (!). I asked W why he opened 1S. He told me that his bidding was not correct, = he had to open 1D. They don't play canape. 1D-opening means at least 4-card = diamond. He also told me that he always would bid 2D, because he was afraid that = his partner would start Spade and that is what he does not want. What do you think, is PASS a LA after the double (..!) ?? Evert. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email = :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150=20 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251=20 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 19 23:50:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:50:28 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08154 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:50:22 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA13605; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:53:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-11.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.75) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013583; Mon Oct 19 08:52:57 1998 Received: by har-pa3-11.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFB45.C989AC00@har-pa3-11.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:49:38 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFB45.C989AC00@har-pa3-11.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:40:13 -0400 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] At 02:37 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Craig wrote: >My impression at the time the definition was changed was that the >ACBL-LC wanted to shock the system and stamp out the erroneous >judgments that (in my recollection) were pervasive at the time. I >expected that after a few years, they would relax the definition to >something more sensible but probably not as loose as 25%. It still >wouldn't surprise me if that happens. ### Actually these are not my words, but a reply...I think from Steve...to a comment of mine on the subject. My comments was along the lines that the old 25% criterion as reffed in TBW Appeals Committee and as used in much of the row made more sense than the present one. (EL)The problem now is that AC members have a hard time distinguishing between an action that a player's peers might "seriously consider" and one that might fleetingly occur to them only to be dismissed without much thought. IMO, if "seriously consider" was taken to mean something along the lines of "Well, I'd never do that on paper, but I might consider doing it under some circumstances" (e.g. an unusually agressive action that you'd seriously consider only if you were shooting for a top, or an unusually conservative action that you'd seriously consider only if your partner was a maniacal overbidder), the ACBL's current definition would be workable. ### Do you mean if cases where you'd "never do it one paper" were excluded from being considered LA's? I hope so, but your meaning is not entirely clear...a rarity for you. :-)) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 01:15:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:15:06 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA10836 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:14:59 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA22177 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019111829.006977a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:18:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: 4S permitted ? In-Reply-To: <01BDFB45.C989AC00@har-pa3-11.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:40 AM 10/19/98 -0400, Craig wrote: >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] > >At 02:37 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Craig wrote: > >>My impression at the time the definition was changed was that the >>ACBL-LC wanted to shock the system and stamp out the erroneous >>judgments that (in my recollection) were pervasive at the time. I >>expected that after a few years, they would relax the definition to >>something more sensible but probably not as loose as 25%. It still >>wouldn't surprise me if that happens. > >### Actually these are not my words, but a reply...I think from Steve...to >a comment of mine on the subject. My comments was along the lines that the >old 25% criterion as reffed in TBW Appeals Committee and as used in much of >the row made more sense than the present one. Sorry about the apparently erroneous attribution. My silly mail reader supplies the word "wrote" when what it really means is "posted" or "sent". >(EL)The problem now is that AC members have a hard time distinguishing >between >an action that a player's peers might "seriously consider" and one that >might fleetingly occur to them only to be dismissed without much thought. > >IMO, if "seriously consider" was taken to mean something along the lines of >"Well, I'd never do that on paper, but I might consider doing it under some >circumstances" (e.g. an unusually agressive action that you'd seriously >consider only if you were shooting for a top, or an unusually conservative >action that you'd seriously consider only if your partner was a maniacal >overbidder), the ACBL's current definition would be workable. > >### Do you mean if cases where you'd "never do it one paper" were excluded >from being considered LA's? I hope so, but your meaning is not entirely >clear...a rarity for you. :-)) No. The parenthetical examples were meant to show the difference between "might do" and "might seriously consider", and I would expect them to fall within the ACBL's current defintion of LAs. My main point was the need to further distinguish between "might seriously consider" and "might think of" -- a distinction which, IMO, is not usually being made. 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 Oct 20 01:18:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:18:23 +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 BAA10856 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:18:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA30921 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA10799 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:21:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810191521.LAA10799@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: 2D permitted ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I might like to know the vulnerability and scoring, but off-hand, I > would allow the 2D call. Is passing a LA? As usual, my bridge judgment differs from some others'. Why shouldn't 1NT be going off, maybe a lot? Opener has a good hand. And why should opener expect to make more in his own contract? I'd say pass is a LA in any jurisdiction, and I might very well choose to pass, at least at some vulnerabilities. Bidding is likely to gain only if we have game at red or if 1NT is making. > But more to the point is that the protracted hesitation does not > demonstrably suggest bidding over passing. What does the hesitation > indicate? Only that which we may reasonably infer from the double > itself, which is to say partner has a good hand, but no way to > determine whether 1NT doubled is apt to be superior to alternative > strains. Huh? If partner is uncertain, doesn't that suggest pulling the double? Posting note: please limit line length in original material to 72 characters. Up to 79 are OK in quoted material. I'd recommend using 'x' for a double and '!' for an alert because I think these will be more widely understood. Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 01:33:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:33:42 +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 BAA10912 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:33:30 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-176.access.net.il [192.116.198.176]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAA11192; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:36:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <362B5C8A.244E8EA5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:36:42 +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: Law Headings (was Change of Lead) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe John's proposal is the best from the judge/advocate point of view . this is the way regular Laws are published. The trouble is with the form of text , or the dimension of the book.... We still should find the best printing form - maybe what is considered heading and/or sub-heading will be print in italics or bold or both ......etc.... Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article 03.core.theplanet.net>, Grattan writes > >Grattan > >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. > > > >"I have hardly ever known a mathematician > >who was capable of reasoning" (Plato) > > > > > >---------- > >From: Jesper Dybdal > >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Subject: Re: Change of lead > >Date: 14 October 1998 18:34 > > > >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:33:37 +0100, David Stevenson > > wrote: > >> Please, everyone. The headings are *not* part of the Laws, and while > >>many are quite helpful, some are *not*. This one is known as one of the > >>unhelpful ones! > > > >Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the > >WBFLC that for the next full laws revision the headings should be > >(a) made part of the laws and (b) carefully considered and if > >necessary corrected. > > > >Headings are really valuable when they're correct. If they were > >part of the laws it would also be easier to write (and read) the > >main text, since you would not have to say everything that the > >headings say once more in the text itself. > > I've laid out Law 18 and 19 (I've chosen ones which are non- > controversial) in what (to me at least) is a better format > > LAW 18 BIDS > > A A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to Proper > seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and Form > redouble are calls but not bids.) > > B A bid supercedes a previous bid if it names either To > the same number of odd tricks in a higher-ranking Supercede > denomination or a greater number of odd tricks a Bid > in any denomination. > > C A bid that supercedes the immediately previous Sufficient > bid is a sufficient bid. Bid > > etc.. > > LAW 19 DOUBLES AND > REDOUBLES > > A Doubles > > A1 A player may double only the last preceding bid. Legal > That bid must have been made by an opponent, calls Double > other than pass must not have intervened > > A2 In doubling, a player should not state the number Proper > of odd tricks or the denomination. The only Form for > correct form is the single word "Double" Double > > etc.. > > B Redoubles > > B1 A player may redouble only the last preceding Legal > double. That double must have been made by an Redouble > opponent, calls other than pass must not have > intervened. > > etc.. > > C Double or > Redouble > supeceded > > etc.. > > I've always treated the headings as if they were useful marginal > annotations and they are of help when searching for a Law but a damn > nuisance when one is trying to read it. To me this layout helps both > the search and the reading. It would have to be page layout sensitive > (not a problem with modern wordprocessors) as the headings (now margins) > would need to be on the open edge of the page. > -- > 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 Oct 20 02:41:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:41:34 +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 CAA11245 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:41:25 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.216] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zVIPH-0006uK-00; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:43:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bdfb7f$eb13be80$d83463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:45:40 +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 Derek Rimington tells the story of a high-stake rubber bridge game in which dummy's trump holding was KJ10x. Declarer led a card, LHO followed, dummy's king was played and RHO followed suit. The jack was led from dummy, and RHO played low before ostentatiously rearranging his hand. "No need for that", said declarer. "I have the queen of trumps." A more well-known and probably apocryphal tale may be unfamiliar to some on the list. It concerns the great American player Hal Sims, whose talent for sniffing out two-way finesses was legendary - he seemed always to be able to discern which of his opponents was the more on edge during the play. A deal came up in which Sims, declarer in seven spades, was faced with a trump suit of AJ109x facing K8xx. Winning the opening lead, he sat for several moments in thought before he eventually exploded: "This is impossible! You've both got the queen!" He was right, for the deal had been fixed in exactly that way. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 03:14:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 03:14:36 +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 DAA11303 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 03:14:31 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA28948; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810191717.KAA28948@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "E.Angad-Gaur" , Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:14:28 -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 Answered perhaps by Edgar Kaplan when commenting on a similar situation: "In order to allow South [West, in this case] to pull after a slow double, the pass must be unreasonable, eccentric, far out." I don't think a pass with the West hand satisfies EK's criterion, especially considering the strength of the hand. Pass is therefore an LA demonstrably suggested by the UI, making it mandatory. Change the ace of clubs to a small one and the answer could be different. The vulnerability should be included in such writeups, as that can matter sometimes. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) ---------- E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > > Collegaes, > > There were enough reactions on the problem of "4S permitted". Most of the > reactions agreed that PASS was a LA. > > Now I got the following : > > West S Q10976 W N E S > H -- 1S 1NT ..! p > D AK7643 2D > C A3 > > At the end of the bidding EW played 3S-1. > After the play NS asked me if 2D was permitted after the long pause (2 minutes) > of E before East Doubled (!). > I asked W why he opened 1S. He told me that his bidding was not correct, he had > to open 1D. They don't play canape. 1D-opening means at least 4-card diamond. > He also told me that he always would bid 2D, because he was afraid that his > partner would start Spade and that is what he does not want. > > What do you think, is PASS a LA after the double (..!) ?? > > 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 Tue Oct 20 03:25:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 03:25:55 +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 DAA11334 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 03:25:44 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22631 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:23:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199810191723.MAA22631@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: 2D permitted ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:23:43 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > I might like to know the vulnerability and scoring, but off-hand, I > > would allow the 2D call. Is passing a LA? > > As usual, my bridge judgment differs from some others'. Why shouldn't Not from mine. > 1NT be going off, maybe a lot? Opener has a good hand. And why should > opener expect to make more in his own contract? I'd say pass is a LA > in any jurisdiction, and I might very well choose to pass, at least at > some vulnerabilities. Bidding is likely to gain only if we have game > at red or if 1NT is making. Game at red in what strain? I agree completely. If this partnership has no unusual methods or anything that would change the situation, then passing definately seems like a LA to me. > > But more to the point is that the protracted hesitation does not > > demonstrably suggest bidding over passing. What does the hesitation > > indicate? Only that which we may reasonably infer from the double > > itself, which is to say partner has a good hand, but no way to > > determine whether 1NT doubled is apt to be superior to alternative > > strains. > > Huh? If partner is uncertain, doesn't that suggest pulling the double? _Why_ is partner uncertain about doubling? Does he hold spade length? Unlikely, in view of the 1 NT direct overcall. [And many players would bid spades if they had support.] No, it seems to me that the hesitation suggests that partner has a nice suit of his own that he is wondering if he should bid. What suit would that be? Hearts, most likely, or maybe clubs. Will pulling the double and telling partner that we have a misfit increase our chances of a good score? Will we play a seven card fit [or maybe our 6-0 heart fit], or declare a NT contract instead of defending one? I don't think the hesitation suggests bidding on. At least, not "demonstrably". -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 05:30:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:30:04 +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 FAA11662 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:29:53 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:33:10 -0700 Message-ID: <362B949B.5453FDD6@home.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:35:55 -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: 4S permitted ? References: <3.0.1.32.19981019111829.006977a4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > No. The parenthetical examples were meant to show the difference between > "might do" and "might seriously consider", and I would expect them to fall > within the ACBL's current defintion of LAs. My main point was the need to > further distinguish between "might seriously consider" and "might think of" > -- a distinction which, IMO, is not usually being made. May I suggest this as a logical ty-in to another thread, in the sense that L12C3 could be profitably used in such cases. Rather than having to decide 100% whether or not a borderline action is an LA, a decision which might swing the result enormously when applying L12C2, an AC could separately calculate the two scores resulting from L12C2 with resp. without action X considered an LA, then agree on some mixture that they feel would achieve "equity". As long as the final score is somewhere between two potential extremes resulting from L12C2, maybe even acbl'ers would see some sense in this? Is it any more "muddy", and open to abuse, than having to distinguish between "might seriously consider", "might think of", or "might bid under some circumstances" etc?? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 05:34:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:34:56 +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 FAA11707 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:34:51 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17355; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810191937.MAA17355@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grant C. Sterling" , "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:34:12 -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 Grant Sterling wrote: > _Why_ is partner uncertain about doubling? Does he hold spade > length? Unlikely, in view of the 1 NT direct overcall. > [And many players would bid spades if they had support.] > No, it seems to me that the hesitation suggests that partner > has a nice suit of his own that he is wondering if he should > bid. What suit would that be? Hearts, most likely, or maybe > clubs. Will pulling the double and telling partner that we > have a misfit increase our chances of a good score? Will > we play a seven card fit [or maybe our 6-0 heart fit], or > declare a NT contract instead of defending one? > I don't think the hesitation suggests bidding on. At least, > not "demonstrably". > Slow penalty doubles suggest doubt about playing the doubled contract. Slow means doubt, fast means no doubt. Hence slow suggests not passing the double, fast suggests passing it. Figuring out why partner hesitated, or if bidding could lead to a bad result, is not part of the equation. He is certainly expressing doubt about playing 1NT doubled. "Demonstrably have been suggested over another" does not mean "demonstrably have suggested its superiority over another." Even if bidding is more likely than pass to lead to a bad result (partner has hearts, or hearts and clubs), bidding (i.e., not passing) is suggested by the hesitation and is therefore forbidden when both pass and bid are LAs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 06:03:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:03:26 +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 GAA11848 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:03:20 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:06:48 -0700 Message-ID: <362B9C42.1B76F534@home.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:08:34 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? References: <199810191521.LAA10799@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: In response to: > > But more to the point is that the protracted hesitation does not > > demonstrably suggest bidding over passing. What does the hesitation > > indicate? Only that which we may reasonably infer from the double > > itself, which is to say partner has a good hand, but no way to > > determine whether 1NT doubled is apt to be superior to alternative > > strains. > > Huh? If partner is uncertain, doesn't that suggest pulling the double? I'm not sure abt this, Steve. It's very likely responder hesitated between X and 2H (note advancer didn't "rescue" to 2H). It might be a huge misfit, and defending 1NTX can easily be right. It can be argued that the hesitation actually suggests passing over bidding, so I'd let the 2D bid stand. Personally (if forced to accept opening 1S) I'd bid 3D over an in tempo X, since it seems oppo's will have a good rescue-place, but that's another story. This West appears a novice/intermediate, so it's difficult to determine LA's for his/her peers! PS: I'd venture a guess that the X-er held: Kx KQxxxx x Jxxx or similar. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 06:11:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:11:53 +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 GAA11883 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:11:47 +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 NAA26713 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA07014; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:21 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:21 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810192017.NAA07014@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Jay Apfelbaum wrote: Lots of good thinking, Jay---you covered most the the ground that's at issue. The approaches you suggest, however, are only partial solutions; they won't work against dedicated cheaters. |Modern programming gives us some options, but I suspect that most, if not |all, of the players will consider them oppressive at the least. For |simplicity, on-line service refers to the bridge provider (OK Bridge, etc.), |and not to the ISP (AOL, etc.). Of course. The ISP has nothing to do with this, just as the power company does not. More of an issue is whether one should consider OKBridge, the Zone, etc. to be SOs or clubs within a global SO "On-line bridge" or something else. |To cover telephone and other types of non-computer communication, each |contestant should sign a statement they will not engage in this activity. ACBL members should also sign such a statement. Won't that help when some convicted cheater sues for reinstatement? Or if it wouldn't help the ACBL, why should it help anyone else? |This is possible as part of the sign-on process. In addition, they could |electronically sign an authorization for release of telephone records (and Are there records for local calls? Do you know if I have a cell phone? What if I have multiple long-distance providers? This just won't work. |To cover computer uses, each contestant would have to agree to download and |use a computer monitoring software program. Such things are available. The None work. None will ever work. Even if they did, it'd be so easy to hack one to avoid telltales that it'd be pointless to bother to ask for this information. I, personally, could probably write a program to screen the output of such a tattletale program in minutes. |One other problem to cover is when one person plays on another's account. I |suggest that every player (subscriber or not) be given a player number. This That might be worthwhile, although (a) a number is anachronistic---people have names, (b) is easy to forget to use, and (c) is only up to the single player to be responsible. Yeah, right. |The penalty for any violation (even most minor) would have to be |extraordinary. That is because of the difficulty in proving any charge. I |would suggest a monetary fine (to cover expenses of investigation) and |suspension for at least 3 years. Does not follow. It's almost impossible to prove that Joe Doakes spit on the sidewalk at midnight. Does he deserve capital punishment because a law officer happened to see him do it? No, at least in American justice, and at least in my personal idea of justice, this won't do. The punishment must fit the crime. If we can't catch them, we either live with the cheats or step up our catching skills and effort. On the other hand, 90% of cheating at on-line bridge is going to fall under 73B2 (which prescribes expulsion) or Intentional Obtaining of Unuathorized Information, which is not covered by the laws, best I can tell. The ACBL Ethical Oversight Committee ruled that L16B can be used to prosecute even though 16B states "accidental." Perhaps a Law 16D, use of intentionally obtained UI, might be worth adding to on-line bridge laws. The penalty suggested should probably not be expulsion for a single case, but should be for a pattern of offenses. Such a law, however, requires knowledge of intent. Circumstantial evidence ought to be sufficient---if the convicted player doesn't have any evidence to support the claim that his used UI was accidental (he'll never do that---he'll try to claim that he didn't have it) then unless there's good reason otherwise, one can assume intentional. |[suggesting self-alerts] I'm not sure if self-alerting is currently legal. It's certainly easier than partner alerting, as UI is not an issue. Should "both alert," however, be required? If not, then the opposition loses some information to which they are currently entitled in many cases, that is, the knowledge that a misunderstanding is in progress. It is not clear to me that they really ought to know this, but the current laws suggest they do. Anyway, I'd happily vote for either case, though I'd prefer if someone came up with a convincing argument for either. |Miscellaneous item. Any person who leaves during a hand, regardless of |fault, is deemed to have conceded the rest of the tricks. If during the |auction, they get an automatic zero. It is doubtful that one hand (however |disastrous) will significantly affect that players rating. The rule is |needed to prevent people from "crashing" their own connection to avoid a bad |result. Too harsh. Again, the "pattern of offenses" approach should be used. If the player does this a lot, he should be disciplined. He'll blame it on something, either his phone or computer or ISP or cat or whatever. For the first punishment, he gets 30 days to fix the problem (get a new phone or modem/computer or change ISPs or close the door so that the cat can't in or whatever); if the problem persists, then more serious punishment is in order. If it happens once in a long time, that's life---he probably didn't do it intentionally. In "serious" events, the other players can just wait for his return; that'll slow down the movement, but if at most 10% of the tables are lagging behind, that's no real problem. Board security is less troublesome in a "serious play" environment. On-line tournaments are run barometer-style, so any non-immediate cheating method (playing the hands twice, etc.) is not an issue. --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 Tue Oct 20 06:27:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:27:49 +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 GAA11931 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:27:31 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21759 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:25:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199810192025.PAA21759@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:25:28 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > No, it seems to me that the hesitation suggests that partner > > has a nice suit of his own that he is wondering if he should > > bid. What suit would that be? Hearts, most likely, or maybe > > clubs. Will pulling the double and telling partner that we > > have a misfit increase our chances of a good score? Will > > we play a seven card fit [or maybe our 6-0 heart fit], or > > declare a NT contract instead of defending one? > > > I don't think the hesitation suggests bidding on. At least, > > not "demonstrably". > > > Slow penalty doubles suggest doubt about playing the doubled > contract. Slow means doubt, fast means no doubt. Hence slow > suggests not passing the double, fast suggests passing it. Figuring > out why partner hesitated, or if bidding could lead to a bad > result, is not part of the equation. He is certainly expressing > doubt about playing 1NT doubled. We agree on that last sentence. But we don't agree on the rest. I think we _must_ ask "why has partner hesitated"--what hand does his hesitation probably show? In other words, what is _all_ of the information the hesitation has given to me, and what is suggested by the hesitation _all things considered_. Otherwise I can be allowed to benefit from UI, as long as I know something partner doesn't. > "Demonstrably have been suggested over another" does not mean > "demonstrably have suggested its superiority over another." Even if That's the way I would have taken it. > bidding is more likely than pass to lead to a bad result (partner > has hearts, or hearts and clubs), bidding (i.e., not passing) is > suggested by the hesitation and is therefore forbidden when both > pass and bid are LAs. Is this the universal opinion of this List? Suppose I have a hand that strongly suggests that 1NT will be crushed _if partner has hearts_. His hesitation says "I'm not sure about doubling" but also says "I probably have hearts, partner". You are saying that I am legally obligated to _pass_ and get my top. I am saying that I am legally obligated to bid and give up my top. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 06:28:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:28:53 +1000 Received: from abest.com (root@mail.abest.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11947 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:28:47 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (dial149.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.149]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA24135; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adam@popserver.visalia.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:31:53 -0400 To: "JApfelbaum" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Cc: "MR KENT V BURGHARD" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Our District Director brought this up at a recent Unit Board meeting. He had some similar things to say regarding ways to minimize cheating. I hadn't thought about it before hand, but I realize I have strong opinions on the matter, so I spoke up then and will now. I suggest we take it as given that, absent live monitoring, anyone who wants to cheat at online bridge can do so with minimal effort. I can't make it more plain than that. I'm not addressing how many such individuals there are. I'm not suggesting the we do or do not award master points, silicon points, or anything else. I am suggesting that the subject be discussed without blinders on. Pursuing the matter this way has three advantages. First and foremost, it is in accord with reality. For instance, none of the alleged safeguards would prevent a partnership from borrowing a pair of cellular phones from friends and being in constant contact during a tournament, and that's just off the top off my head. Second, it means we can dispense with all the onerous "safeguards", since we know they will be unavailing. I see nothing wrong with requiring a signed statement that a player won't cheat - at least that lets the competitors know what's expected of them, and it doesn't seem onerous to me. Third, it means we can retain a role for local bridge clubs in on-line bridge. For less serious events we can play at home. For more serious events competitors can play at their local club, with a partner from across the room or across the globe, and opponents from all over. The logistics of this could be tricky, but internet-capable computers are coming down in price daily, to the point where they cost less than travel expenses to an average tournament. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 06:53:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:53:31 +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 GAA12028 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:53:25 +1000 Received: from user-38lc4cn.dialup.mindspring.com (user-38lc4cn.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.151]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08560 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by user-38lc4cn.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFB81.62A0CBE0@user-38lc4cn.dialup.mindspring.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:56:16 -0700 Message-ID: <01BDFB81.62A0CBE0@user-38lc4cn.dialup.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "BLML (E-mail)" Subject: RE: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:44:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You assert that "figuring out why partner hesitated" is irrelevant. I = agree. Partner is evidently uncertain that 1nt doubled is the best spot. = But we knew that _without_ the hesitation! After all, what kind of hand = can partner have that would make 1nt doubled unambiguously the best = contract? Whether partner has a scattered 11-12 hcp or more = distributional values, he is undoubtedly concerned about whether this is = the best spot. The hesitation _in this case_ doesn't convey any = information that is not immediately available as a matter of simple = bridge experience.=20 Consider the universe of hands which might double 1nt in this position. = Possibly, some are more likely than others to pose a problem in deciding = whether or not to double. But I think it is fair to say that the class = of problem hands has no particular pattern of features which usefully = distinguish it from the non-problem hands, if such can be constructed. = That's because the likelihood of a profitable set rises or falls in = pretty direct proportion to the likelihood of a successful game = contract. Marvin wrote: >Slow penalty doubles suggest doubt about playing the doubled >contract. Slow means doubt, fast means no doubt. Hence slow >suggests not passing the double, fast suggests passing it. Figuring >out why partner hesitated, or if bidding could lead to a bad >result, is not part of the equation. He is certainly expressing >doubt about playing 1NT doubled. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 06:57:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:57:35 +1000 Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12049 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 06:57:29 +1000 Received: from norbertf (p00-13.brus.online.be [194.88.125.13]) by carno.brus.online.be (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA02703; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:57:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199810192057.WAA02703@carno.brus.online.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "E.Angad-Gaur" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:59:44 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: E.Angad-Gaur > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: 2D permitted ? > Date: maandag 19 oktober 1998 13:41 > > Collegaes, > > There were enough reactions on the problem of "4S permitted". Most of the > reactions agreed that PASS was a LA. > > Now I got the following : > > West S Q10976 W N E S > H -- 1S 1NT ..! p > D AK7643 2D > C A3 > > At the end of the bidding EW played 3S-1. > After the play NS asked me if 2D was permitted after the long pause (2 minutes) > of E before East Doubled (!). > I asked W why he opened 1S. He told me that his bidding was not correct, he had > to open 1D. They don't play canape. 1D-opening means at least 4-card diamond. > He also told me that he always would bid 2D, because he was afraid that his > partner would start Spade and that is what he does not want. > > What do you think, is PASS a LA after the double (..!) ?? > > 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 | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not see if you can pass with this distributional hand , some players will almost bid 3 diamonds N. Fornoville From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 07:02:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:02:08 +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 HAA12064 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:02:02 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id RAA13893; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:05:30 -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-1998Oct19.164800.1189.278705; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:06:00 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws), jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-ID: <1998Oct19.164800.1189.278705@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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:06:00 -0400 Subject: RE: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jeff Goldsmith[SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:34 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations >>|To cover computer uses, each contestant would have to agree to download and >>|use a computer monitoring software program. Such things are available. The >None work. None will ever work. Even if they did, >it'd be so easy to hack one to avoid telltales that >it'd be pointless to bother to ask for this information. >I, personally, could probably write a program to screen >the output of such a tattletale program in minutes. I beg to differ. I work for a company that designs and builds network monitoring equipment. One of the little dodads that we came up with is a network monitoring shim that links in between the MAC wrapper and the NDIS driver. This shim is capable of doing anything from raw statistical analysis of the data being trasmitted/received, all the way up to expert level analysis (monitoring for TCP retransmissions, response time analysis, etc). Monitoring for ICQ or some other similar program would be trivial. While I agree in principle that it would be possible to design and build a filtering application that would screen data from this type of tattletale program, I think that you're off by a couple orders of magnitude with regards to the difficulty of such a task. At the very least, even if you could bypass the protocol decode portions of the application, you'd also need to doctor the statistics displays to match the new "edited" data. I'm not saying that this couldn't be done. I do think it would require a serious time commitment from a very experienced programmer. Richard Willey Product Manager GN Nettest From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 07:27:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:27:28 +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 HAA12159 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:27:22 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA09752 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019173056.006df3e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:30:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: L12C3 redux (WAS: 4S permitted ?) In-Reply-To: <362B949B.5453FDD6@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19981019111829.006977a4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 10/19/98 -0700, Jan wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> No. The parenthetical examples were meant to show the difference between >> "might do" and "might seriously consider", and I would expect them to fall >> within the ACBL's current defintion of LAs. My main point was the need to >> further distinguish between "might seriously consider" and "might think of" >> -- a distinction which, IMO, is not usually being made. > >May I suggest this as a logical ty-in to another thread, in the sense >that L12C3 could be profitably used in such cases. Rather than having to >decide 100% whether or not a borderline action is an LA, a decision >which might swing the result enormously when applying L12C2, an AC could >separately calculate the two scores resulting from L12C2 with resp. >without action X considered an LA, then agree on some mixture that they >feel would achieve "equity". As long as the final score is somewhere >between two potential extremes resulting from L12C2, maybe even acbl'ers >would see some sense in this? >Is it any more "muddy", and open to abuse, than having to distinguish >between "might seriously consider", "might think of", or "might bid >under some circumstances" etc?? Far more muddy, and almost guaranteed to be abused (just consider the extent to which ACBL ACs abuse L12C1). It would certainly make the AC's decision process more complicated, and make any affected decisions much harder to justify and explain to the appellants. The laws require an AC to determine what is an LA, and common sense says that a particular action either is an LA or is not an LA. Letting a given action, in effect, be x of an LA and (1-x) of not an LA not only violates common sense, but gives ACs license to handle disagreements about a particular action by "splitting the difference" rather than by addressing the substance of the disagreement. Give 'em an "out" meant only for the genuinely tough cases and they'll take it every time. L12C3 might be workable if it were genuinely the case that a 60-40 split would mean that the five members of the AC agreed unanimously that equity was best served by applying 60-40 weights to the possible outcomes. But in real life a 60-40 split would almost inevitably mean that the AC divided 3-to-2 over the correct outcome, with none of them thinking that equity was best served by their compromise(d) final decision. I'm afraid I remain in agreement with the ACBL that (a) L12C3 gives an AC license to ignore L12C2 completely and report out any score they feel like, with no constraint or restriction, and (b) ACs in ACBL-land are not usually experienced and competent enough to justify granting them such latitude. I do understand that this is not the case everywhere, and have no opinion as to the merits of allowing L12C3 in other jurisdictions. 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 Oct 20 07:53:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:53:14 +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 HAA12220 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:53:09 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.124]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981019215620.LSAM23212@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:56:20 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:53:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdfbaa$f1347180$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 > >Slow penalty doubles suggest doubt about playing the doubled >contract. Slow means doubt, fast means no doubt. Hey Marv, you got an agreement here??????? :)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 07:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:59:06 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12244 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:58:57 +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 SAA24305 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA11222 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810192202.SAA11222@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Goldsmith) > |To cover computer uses, each contestant would have to agree to download and > |use a computer monitoring software program. Such things are available. The > > None work. None will ever work. Even if they did... I agree with Jeff and Adam that technical solutions are basically useless. If you want to avoid cheating, you have to physically monitor the players. Even a surveillance camera could be subverted. (Even in-person monitoring can be subverted, but it is harder.) > I'm not sure if self-alerting is currently legal. It is up to the SO. (Where is the law permitting SO's to establish alerting regulations in the first place?) L80E is quite sufficient, even without anything else. Online bridge is surely special conditions within the meaning of 80E. > Should "both alert," however, be required? If not, then the opposition > loses some information to which they are currently entitled in many > cases, that is, the knowledge that a misunderstanding is in progress. I wouldn't have said "entitled." In F2F bridge, it often happens that one finds out when a misunderstanding is in progress, but I regard that as a _bad_ thing. With screens, opponents are very often unaware of a misunderstanding. Of course there will be MI to at least one of them, but if that doesn't cause damage, there is no reason to adjust the score. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 08:11:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:11:05 +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 IAA12280 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:10:59 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.124]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981019221410.MBTV23212@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:14:10 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:11:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdfbad$70cf7500$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 Tim Goodwin asked: >Isn't it possible for the TD to make the correct decision at the table and >for an AC to be correct in overturning the TD decision? In other words, >can't a TD and an AC get high ratings for the same case, yet come to >different decisions? > >Tim I was cleaning out some mail, found this, thought it had gone unanswered. Yes , in a word From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 08:33:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:33:48 +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 IAA12320 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:33:40 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.7]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5657500 ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:34:53 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981019183955.007d6be0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:39:55 -0400 To: "JApfelbaum" , "MR KENT V BURGHARD" , From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:15 PM 10/17/98 -0400, JApfelbaum wrote: >Modern programming gives us some options, but I suspect that most, if not >all, of the players will consider them oppressive at the least. [snip] Jay presents some interesting ideas on some of the communication issues in internet bridge, and I agree that there are important problems here. I do not, however, reach the same conclusions about the priority which he seems to accord to maximizing security at all levels of competititive play, and believe it is important to consider how the priorities may differ across the full spectrum of competitive internet bridge ranging from open play to sanctioned championship events. A) In play at the highest levels, for national or international championship play, it clearly must be recognized that even the recommended security measures would not be an adequate substitute for supervision by appropriate monitors. B) At the opposite end of the spectrum, open unsanctioned play, it seems equally clear that such intrusive measures would not be accepted. Even I, despite my strong interest in promoting internet bridge played under a set of appropriate laws, would find it very hard to get enthusiastic about investing the considerable effort required for such security measures; it's just not something I feel like I need when I sit down for a friendly but highly competitive game with a group of my online friends. [I might add that my partner and I play regularly against a husband-wife pair. If we didn't trust them, we wouldn't play with them.] Carl Hudecek, among others, has suggested means (including hand scrambling and spectator delays) through which some of the more egregious cheating methods could be short-circuited, but I think we must acknowledge that there is no way to stop cheating entirely. Some have suggested that, because of such concerns, internet bridge is just not real bridge and that there is no reason that it should be played with attention to the f2f Laws. Some have suggested that since there are no laws currently governing internet bridge, there is no such thing as cheating. I disagree with both propositions. There are a large number of players who wish to use the internet to play a game substantially resembling f2f tournament bridge, and there is a legitimate interest in laying out a set of internet bridge laws through which they may find common agreement as to the conditions of play. Furthermore, I think it's quite possible for the internet bridge laws to maintain the spirit of the f2f laws, while accomodating significant innate differences between f2f and internet bridge play as well as other de facto differences which may, at the discretion of the sponsoring organizations, be accorded official acceptance. That the internet game, including open play, retain its relationship to f2f bridge is of particular importance if it is to aid in the growth of duplicate contract bridge; it is worth noting that the vast majority of current internet bridge play is open play, and this is, imo, not likely to change for the forseeable future. Returning to the issues Jay raises and their relationship to the Laws, I note as well that some have suggested that there should be no laws where there can be no guarantees of enforceability. Imo, this argument is also misdirected. The Laws should be defined on the basis of the way honest, civilized persons wish to play competitive bridge; to instead define those laws with the first priority accorded to fears of the possibility of deliberate impropriety is to allow the small minority of players who may be dishonest to define the game. If we define away everything we can't enforce (basically all of the laws governing the mechanisms of communication and disclosure of information), we will then be left with something that really isn't bridge at all. C) The most difficult questions, with regard to security, come in middle of the spectrum, in sanctioned and directed, but unsupervised games such as the ACBL masterpoint games (club games) conducted weekly on OKbridge. The proposed expansion of masterpoint games on the internet has raised heated debate about the acceptability of awarding masterpoints for games in which the security issues have not been substantively addressed. While there are a number of relatively non-intrusive measures which could improve security in these games, we must recognize that security in unsupervised play is both costly and imperfect and reflect upon the costs and benefits of intrusive security measures in light of the goals and priorities of these games. >From my perspective, security concerns are sufficient that these games must be viewed as promotional games, for the primary purpose of showing newer players the attractions of tournament bridge and introducing them to the f2f sponsoring organizations. Imo, it is clear that this purpose would not, in any way, be served by the relatively draconian security measures suggested by Jay; it is incomprehensible to me that requiring the addition of third party monitoring software and the release of phone records etc. would be good publicity for the ACBL or any other sponsoring organization. While it has been my general experience that internet play, especially in expert open play, is far "cleaner" than many club games or even sectionals, I am sympathetic with the concerns of those who say that allowing masterpoints to be awarded in games where security cannot be assured cheapens the game. I'm not sure whether the right answer is to sanction such games or not to sanction such games - the idea of awarding separate netpoints is an intriguing one - but I'm pretty sure that trying to make the net secure without concern for the effect on honest players would be counterproductive. I think each sponsoring organization is going to have to reach its own conclusion. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 08:37:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:37:47 +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 IAA12344 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:37:41 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.42]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981019224053.MPVF23212@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:40:53 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:38:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdfbb1$2c783320$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner answered the query: >> I'm not sure if self-alerting is currently legal. > >It is up to the SO. (Where is the law permitting SO's to establish >alerting regulations in the first place?) Try Law 40 B, last clause. >L80E is quite sufficient, >even without anything else. Online bridge is surely special conditions >within the meaning of 80E. I agree, From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 09:01:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:01:43 +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 JAA12422 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:01:38 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.46.123]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981019230449.OBGR25846@jay-apfelbaum>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:04:49 +0000 Message-ID: <005d01bdfbb4$b1ce1500$7b2e4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "Richard F Beye" , "BLML" Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:03:29 -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 agree it is possible, but only because the standards are different. I suggest that ACBL policy is that TD's are subject to the same standard. I also suggest that the Laws do not give a different standard for TD's and AC's. The reason previous Case Book panels could rate a TD ruling as highly as an AC decision (with both different) is that they do not expect as accurate a decision. TD's have perhaps 2 minutes to get the facts. The floor TD then summarizes these facts for the senior TD's before they confer and decide. AC's get to talk directly to the parties for a much longer period of time and hear the answer (no summary). It seems to me that before we start trying to get rid of AC's (replacing them with senior TD's) we should put the TD's under the SAME STANDARDS as the AC's. Then it is time to judge. Enough rant. Thanks for being patient. Jay Apfelbaum -----Original Message----- From: Richard F Beye To: BLML Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 6:22 PM Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs >Tim Goodwin asked: > >>Isn't it possible for the TD to make the correct decision at the table and >>for an AC to be correct in overturning the TD decision? In other words, >>can't a TD and an AC get high ratings for the same case, yet come to >>different decisions? >> >>Tim > >I was cleaning out some mail, found this, thought it had gone unanswered. > >Yes , in a word > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 09:02:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:02:14 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12436 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:02:07 +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 TAA24147 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA11317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:05:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810192305.TAA11317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > This is the regulation (S and W on the same side of screen): > a) after West's bid, South is the player who must transmit the bids. > b) if West's bid is insufficient and South transmits it to the other side, > both sides are deemed to be Offending Sides. > c) when, on the other side of screen, N or E draws attention to the > irregularity, North has not the option of accepting the insufficient bid, > the bids come back to the initial side of screen, West's insufficient bid > is retracted and all retracted bids are UI for both sides. > d) in the case West had (incorrectly) transmitted the bids after his > insufficient bid, only EW are OS. > e) if North bids without drawing attention to the IB, he is deemed to be OS > (but his side was already, due to South' transmitting bids!) > > My general question was: is there contradiction between? > - L80: no conflict between Laws and SO's regulations > - L27: any insufficient bid may be accepted.... > - regulation: with screens, an insufficient bid may not be accepted No one else seems to have addressed this, so I'll have a go. What the SO seems to be trying for is a situation of "no insufficient bids," as might be enforced by a computer-run game. Reasonable people may disagree about whether this is desirable, but surely it is reasonable for the SO to attempt to run a specific game this way. L80E allows the SO to establish special conditions in general and to waive penalties for actions not transmitted across the screen in particular. Clearly the particular provision does not apply; the SO is _denying_ penalties for actions that _are_ transmitted across the screen. But what about the general provision? Let us suppose the CoC had a provision as follows: "1) It is illegal to send the tray across the screen with an insufficient bid on it. All insufficient bids must be corrected to legal calls before the tray is moved." This seems clearly within the general authority of L80E and also the particular provision for waiving the L27 penalty. Now what provision can be made in case item 1) is violated? Clearly you don't want to allow the IB to be accepted. South would (presumably) transmit West's IB only when it was in NS's interest to have it accepted. This is, in effect, illegal consultation (L10C2). Thus I agree with regulation b) above; it is a natural consequence of a) and 1). West's acceptance of South's IB has the same problem. Now when South pushes the tray through the screen, he is (presumably) saying that he is happy with West's acceptance. This is again not consistent with the general principles of bridge (L73B1 comes to mind). If South were distressed by West's acceptance, he could simply change his bid. So I think if you accept 1) as a legal regulation, you have to accept the rest, including c), as necessary to enforcement of 1) within the other principles of the Laws. I have somewhat surprised myself by this reasoning and conclusion. My initial reaction was exactly the opposite! But perhaps I'm missing something. The fundamental question is whether L80E can be used to override L27, and I think it can. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 09:26:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:26:15 +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 JAA12517 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:26:08 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.159]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5682400 ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:27:04 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981019193205.007d4af0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:32:05 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <199810192202.SAA11222@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I'm not sure if self-alerting is currently legal. > >It is up to the SO. (Where is the law permitting SO's to establish >alerting regulations in the first place?) L80E is quite sufficient, >even without anything else. Online bridge is surely special conditions >within the meaning of 80E. It has been my presumption that the use of self alerts in play with screens establishes ample precedent for the use of self alerts in internet play. Less clear is that accompanying self-explanations are anticipated by the f2f laws, and it is my view that the internet bridge laws should clearly accord this option to the sponsoring organizations. >> Should "both alert," however, be required? If not, then the opposition >> loses some information to which they are currently entitled in many >> cases, that is, the knowledge that a misunderstanding is in progress. > >I wouldn't have said "entitled." In F2F bridge, it often happens >that one finds out when a misunderstanding is in progress, but I >regard that as a _bad_ thing. With screens, opponents are very >often unaware of a misunderstanding. Of course there will be MI >to at least one of them, but if that doesn't cause damage, there >is no reason to adjust the score. Whether both partners should alert, or more importantly in my view, whether both partners should provide an explanation in response to a question, is one of the more difficult questions; there is not a clear answer on first principles, although I think it is clear that there is no suggestion in the laws of a right to knowledge of a misunderstanding. After much consideration and discussion, public and private, I have come to the view that dual explanations cannot be considered an obligation. The following is an extract from the relevant section in the alerts document: V. Dual explanations - When further information is requested following an alertable or non-alertable call, the player who is responsible for alerting and providing explanations should provide a timely and complete explanation of partnership agreements. Should a question be directed to both members of a partnership, the partner of the alerter has the option, but not the obligation, of also providing information. In principle, the provision of dual explanations should provide a measure of indemnity against liability for damage due to mis-explanation, much as the corrections under Law 75D do. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the provision of this information during the auction provides contemporaneous knowledge of a misunderstanding which is not provided under the laws, and a pair should not be compelled to provide dual explanations of a single call. I have recently footnoted this with my interpretation of recent WBFLC minutes (key phrase "it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A ... whether the explanation of his partner B was correct") which appear to affirm that there is not a right to knowledge of a misunderstanding. [Please comment, Grattan or Ton, if I have misunderstood this.] >From a practical perspective, concern with the issue of what many feel is extralegal knowledge of a misunderstanding ranks as one of the greatest concerns of those who are apprehensive about the current trend toward self alerts and explanations. Many players are concerned that self explanations, in and of themselves, provide inappropriate information to the opponents, who may in many cases end up better informed as to the meaning of the bid than the partner of the bidder. This is frequently cited as being especially disadvantageous to the pick-up partnerships common in internet play. In my view, this disadvantage is largely illusory, and there is ultimately a prevailing interest in ensuring disclosure, avoiding UI and avoiding damage, particularly when there is no director available; I'll save those arguments for another post. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 09:38:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:38:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12546 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:38:24 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVOw9-0007Be-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:42:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:40:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ACBL National ACs In-Reply-To: <01bdfbad$70cf7500$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bdfbad$70cf7500$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net>, Richard F Beye writes >Tim Goodwin asked: > >>Isn't it possible for the TD to make the correct decision at the table and >>for an AC to be correct in overturning the TD decision? In other words, >>can't a TD and an AC get high ratings for the same case, yet come to >>different decisions? >> >>Tim > >I was cleaning out some mail, found this, thought it had gone unanswered. > >Yes , in a word > Yes, I may make a ruling on a "could have known" basis and the AC may decide that the bridge merit of the action is such that I am overturned. Neither I nor the AC would have any problem with this. 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 Oct 20 09:43:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:43:48 +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 JAA12565 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:43:41 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.132] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zVOzy-000160-00; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:46:03 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bdfbba$e9ac1660$843563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:48:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: [snip] > But we don't agree on the rest. I think we _must_ ask "why has >partner hesitated"--what hand does his hesitation probably show? In other >words, what is _all_ of the information the hesitation has given to me, >and what is suggested by the hesitation _all things considered_. Otherwise >I can be allowed to benefit from UI, as long as I know something partner >doesn't. This is important, since in the auction in question West has both AI and UI. Together, these create a fairly clear picture of East's most likely hand. AI - East very probably has 5+ hearts and 3- spades - follows from the auction and West's own hand. UI - partner has about 9-12 hcp instead of 13+ hcp - follows from the tempo of East's double. >> "Demonstrably have been suggested over another" does not mean >> "demonstrably have suggested its superiority over another." Even if > > That's the way I would have taken it. I do not see the distinction. If a call is "suggested", then it is suggested because it is (in context) superior to other calls in terms of improving our side's result on the hand. >> bidding is more likely than pass to lead to a bad result (partner >> has hearts, or hearts and clubs), bidding (i.e., not passing) is >> suggested by the hesitation and is therefore forbidden when both >> pass and bid are LAs. Well, the fact that partner certainly has hearts and probably has clubs is AI to West because of his own hand. This AI suggests passing. Absent the UI - that partner may well be under strength for the double, or may have spade support - pass is certainly logical. However, it is important to note that West has no information - authorised or otherwise - about partner's diamond length; it is trivial enough to construct hands for East on which 1NT doubled goes one or two down on a major suit lead with five or even six diamonds cold for EW. If West were to bid two or three diamonds, it could be argued that his choice was based solely on that part of the information available to him that was authorised. > Is this the universal opinion of this List? Suppose I have a hand >that strongly suggests that 1NT will be crushed _if partner has hearts_. >His hesitation says "I'm not sure about doubling" but also says "I >probably have hearts, partner". No. The hesitation expresses uncertainty. West's hand and the auction make it clear that partner has hearts. >You are saying that I am legally >obligated to _pass_ and get my top. I am saying that I am legally >obligated to bid and give up my top. Well, it is not at all clear which action will work best; pace Steve and his bidding judgment, either course could lead to any kind of result from a top to an average to a bottom. What is important is that we do not stick West with whichever action works out worst, for that is a dereliction of our duty under the Laws (though it is a course adopted all too frequently at levels from the lowest to the highest). The hand is so complex that no one could state with certainty what West ought to do, so I would be tempted to apply a flawed but not totally invalid test - the "voice of thunder" approach. If East's double systemically meant: don't pull this unless you have opened a distributional nine count, would West pass? Probably, so pass is what he should do. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 10:05:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:05:41 +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 KAA12636 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:05:33 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.159]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5701900 ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:06:15 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981019201118.007d6100@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:11:18 -0400 To: rew@ma.ultranet.com From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <362A0500.7AE6@ma.ultranet.com> References: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 AM 10/18/98 -0400, richard willey wrote: >Japfelbaum wrote an interesting letter to the bridge-laws mailing list >asking about how the Laws of Bridge might need to change to support >on-line play in an environment like OKBridge or the Microsoft Game >Zone. I'm going to steer clear of some of Jay's more controversial >suggestions like granting the ACBL the authority to tap phone lines. >Instead, I want to focus on a somewhat less controversial topic area; >disclosure about information about bidding systems and specifically >about the interaction of convention cards and alert structures. For the >benefit of David Stevenson, at the moment I am concentrating on >established partnerships. [snip] Richard has given a good deal of thought to alerts and disclosure issues, and I have greatly appreciated his enthusiastic review and comments on the alerts and disclosure documents I've been preparing. [I should also thank Dany Haimovici for his enthusiastic contributions to the alerts and laws projects.] I agree with Richard that new opportunities for disclosure should be exploited, and would add that this is particularly advantageous when players from different parts of the world, with very different ideas as to what might be alertable, meet in a playing environment without a director to sort out problems. I also support Richard's efforts to move these technologies forward, but have stopped short of endorsing the automation of alerts in my own recommendations. Instead, I have focused on provision of information using present technologies and the arguments for and against the use of self alerts and explanations as an effective and desirable exploitation of those technologies. Imo, this is the first issue that needs to be addressed, and there are a number of issues which must be considered. The technologies Richard suggests offer some substantial advantages over existing technologies but raise a number of additional questions which will need to be addressed before any widespread implementation of automated alerts could be undertaken. Three interrelated issues, from my perspective, are the feasibility of implementation, the imposition of a new and potentially unfamiliar layer of technology and the subtle interface between the convention card/auto-alert system and aid to memory issues. Considerations as to these issues may differ considerably within the context of various types of internet bridge play. In sanctioned, supervised tournament play at the highest levels, where f2f players are currently filling out a detailed convention card using the WBF CC editor, it seems reasonable for players to invest the effort in creating a detailed convention card, and it seems potentially advantageous from an information perspective to use the hierarchical convention card structures envisioned. However, should such tournaments be designed with the intent of participation by players accustomed to f2f play, I am somewhat wary of the imposition of additional new and potentially unfamiliar technologies on those players who may prefer textual material and the potential of such players to be disadvantaged by their lack of familiarity. If alerts are to be provided automatically by an integrated cc/alert utility, the player making the bid will either see his own alert and explanation or not have it shown to him. If he is to see it, we need to ask whether at some point the (prior?) viewing of his own automated alert/explanation impinges upon issues relating to aids to memory (there are a number of aid to memory issues in internet bridge, to be addressed separately), particularly if his own selection of the bid and explanation is achieved through a hierarchical search of a CC that increasingly resembles system notes. If the player is not able to see his own alerts and explanations, I am concerned that there is an increased possibility of misinformation, particularly during the early stages of development or when the CC is created by players who are unfamiliar with the technology. While there are clear advantages to automating, or at least scripting (as with OKscript), complex explanations during the early stages of frequent auctions, it remains to be seen how readily an automated alert system will be adaptable to complex auctions, including lengthy contested auctions, and whether it will prove useful or feasible for pairs to enter this type of detailed information into an automated CC/alert utility (I may, of course, be underestimating the capacity of the hypertext CC to differentiate between classes of auctions currently covered en masse by textual reference). On balance, it is not yet clear whether the latter stages of most auctions might not be more efficaciously covered by manual entry of the appropriate explanations. In play more analogous to open play on OKbridge or the weekly masterpoint games, it seems doubtful that many pairs would be eager to invest in the creation of such a convention card within the near future. [Richard has wisely focused his arguments on established partnerships, but they constitute a distinct minority.] As it is, many pick-up pairs don't even post a CC, but instead make a few quick agreements on the fly, and I would be wary of creating further disincentives to the use of CCs wherever feasible. A few specific comments below: >By clicking an autoalert >string, a player is automatically moved to the appropriate section of >that pairs convention card. It seems to me that it would be a tremendously useful feature in and of itself if I could click on the opponent's opening bid or response and be linked rapidly to the appropriate section of the convention card. Perhaps this is the point at which this technology should gain an initial foothold that extends beyond what is currently provided by OKscript. >EBU) could provide for on-line bridge would be to attempt to develop a >standardized convention card/alert application and provide this source >code to the different developers of on-line bridge applications. By >doing so, the WBF would be able to ensure the development of a common >alerting standard that would be used across all types of internet >bridge. While I would like to see such linkage technologies supported, I think it's important for basic CCs to be made available to those who prefer them, and that specifying the mechanisms of alerts and disclosure should continue to fall to the sponsoring organizations. Imo, the internet bridge laws should allow the flexibility to develop such methods in accordance with the priorities of the sponsoring organizations, but should not require them. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:35 +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 LAA12853 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQus-0001OD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:29:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <001901bdfa13$458c7f00$622d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: >These rule changes are designed for serious play. The bridge provider will >have to allow each player to choose whether they want to engage in "serious" >play. For tables not so engaged, there will be no rating of results. There >could (and should) be monitoring of results at all tables to disclose any >patterns of possible cheating. I am absolutely flabbergasted by this! I play OKBridge in the most relaxed and uncaring fashion imaginable. Why should I not be allowed to play for a rating? what right have you to take my ratings away from me? The aim is to provide a game to enjoy playing. I am appalled. Why should I not have an Internet equivalent of a local club? Well, I have, OKBridge, but Jay wants to take it away from me. I think that the approach Jay has produced is one of the reasons why the ACBL is failing while less litigious organisations are flourishing. It will appeal to the technically minded minority and drive the majority away. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:37 +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 LAA12855 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuq-0001OB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:15:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L91 In-Reply-To: <199810152039.QAA08271@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> In other words, is L91 just another law that must not, or need not, >> be taken literally? > >This is another law, I predict, about which David S. and I will disagree. > >I take the law literally. It gives permission for a TD to penalize or >suspend a contestant but does not _deny_ permission to penalize or >suspend one player alone. I think it is dubious whether a TD can do >that on his own authority, but I don't see any reason an SO cannot >provide for single-player disciplinary actions if it wishes. If an SO >does this, it would be wise to say when action should be taken against >a single player and when against a contestant. That's true. The Laws do not say that TDs should not shoot players for revoking so per Steve it is perfectly legal for the ACBL to introduce shooting players for revoking. However, I now have the big guns on my side! Extracts from Lille [on my Bridgepage]: 7: 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. >David S. will probably say that by failing to grant permission for >something, the laws implicitly deny permission. He may, however, agree >with this argument: conduct offenses are outside the scope of the laws, >and SO's can make whatever arrangements they like to deal with such >offenses. > >Regardless of what an SO _might_ do, I think it would be wise for the >norm to be to penalize or suspend the whole contestant. An exception >might be made if the two had just met at the partnership desk. After >all, the SO itself then bears some responsibility. But if I have >agreed on my own to play with some obnoxious idiot, then I can hardly >object to being tossed out along with the idiot when he misbehaves. > >Incidentally, the ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_ does not address this >question directly. It uses the word "offender," which certainly >sounds like a single player and not a contestant. > >Does anyone know the official policy of any SO/NCBO on this question? Yes. The ACBL policy is that it is merely the offending player who is ejected and not the rest of the team/pair. I think they have made a sensible decision which is somewhat illegal, and I suggest the ACBL starts the machinery to persuade the WBFLC to alter the word contestant in L91. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:17 +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 LAA12822 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:02 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuc-0001OB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:18:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <199810161551.LAA08836@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I think Vitold is telling us something very important here, and it is >well worth pondering the application of his general principles to >bridge. I can't claim all the applications are clear to me. > >> From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru >> 1. Rules, Laws and Regulations of any sport and its contest first of all >> should ensure to all the participant equity (equal rights) for win. > >Consider a sport where the outcome depends on timing. (Downhill skiing >and speed skating come to mind.) Suppose the official clock is >irregular, sometimes running fast and sometimes slow. Is that fair? I >suppose so in the weak sense that any competitor is just as likely to >be helped as hurt, and there is no reason in advance to prefer any >particular starting position. On the other hand, in the end, two equal >performances may have unequal outcomes, and I hope most of us agree >that is undesirable whether we would call it unfair or not. Given the example, I suppose so. But consider the case where the timing method is not the most accurate possible. Nowadays there will always be people who say that is wrong without any consideration of the minus factors employed to get total accuracy. An example? OK. In the 2025 Winter Olympics timing was introduced to 3 decimal places based on videotiming. However, there was the famous Anstruther/McCabe dead heat. It was believed by most people that McCabe was faster, and it was argued that because he crossed the winning line in the left hand segment his recorded time was slowed by about .0004 seconds. As a result, the Pinto machine was developed for 2027. this was widely believed to be totally accurate to the nearest .00002 second. It was inserted surgically into the skiers before the start and surgically removed afterwards. In 2027 the skiers went on strike and refused to use this timer but it was used in 2029 and 2031. However, after the deaths of eleven skiers after the minor surgery involved its use was discontinued despite the authorities assuring everyone that the eleven deaths was merely a coincidence. >(By the way, there were plenty of real-life examples of the above until >electronic timing was introduced. I'm guessing that for most sports >that was about 30 years ago, but it certainly was within living >memory.) > >Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness >to the extent possible. ... but only to a practical extent. To achieve total accuracy/fairness is not necessarily desirable because of the other factors that are introduced. >> 2. The same Rules, Laws, Regulations describe how contests should be >> provided, what is right manner of participants' fighting, which doings >> are forbidden, what is the method of comparing the results and of >> winner's defining. > >Seems clear enough. There are lots of applications to bridge, but one >is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same >infraction will always receive the same ruling. That is a terrible idea, and I hope we never introduce such a rule. You really want to act against a beginner the same as a World Champion in *every* situation? >> As board's result is basic for defining the final position of participants - >so >> we should protect equity for boards. And there may be two way: >> - local equity - equity between parties of the table where conflict >> happened (traditionally understood equity) >> - integral equity - equity inside line, protecting the field > >"Protecting the field" is controversial, of course. The need for it is >clear, but traditionally we have only tried to ensure local equity and >let field equity take care of itself. Maybe that isn't a bad approach. >Maybe it is the best we can do as a practical matter. But we should >know what we are doing and why. The need for it is not clear to me. I think it is another example of muddled thinking. If you offer someone a fairly simple idea [such as the new millennium starts in 2000] then there is a tendency to accept it without thinking about it. In fact there is little reason why protecting the field has any desirability at all, or, to be totally fair, little reason that I have ever thought of or read or been told. I just think that protecting the field sounds fair so people assume it is. I believe we should abandon it as a concept because it does considerable harm to the game. Any of you who actually believe this nonsense of the new millennium starting in 2000 [it starts on 1/1/2001] might like to read the article explaining the matter on my Generalpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm >> I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for reaching >> the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for reaching the integral >> equity, with possible non-balance adjusted score (because integral equity >> often will be different for opposing lines). And it is TD's authority (under >> the current Laws) to protect field - even via starting the appeal procedure. > >This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested >before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? >(Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) Sounds awful. Is this a suggestion of more differentiation between the work of the TD and the AC? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 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 LAA12852 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:20 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuq-0001OC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:25:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadvertant 4th Seat Weak Two In-Reply-To: <+Hj+tkAZnqJ2Ewu6@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: >which law allows you to cancel the 4th in hand weak 2? IMO there is no >UI when 2nd seat says nothing to think about. His comment is UI, whatever it means, so there is UI. > He's told you he's only >just started to think about THIS hand. Oh? Is that what nothing to think about means? In my simple minded way, I might have thought that it meant he had nothing to think about on this hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12847 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuq-0001OA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:50:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > The reason I say "exposed a card" is that I do not accept he >has contributed the card to the previous trick and there is as yet >no subsequent trick to receive it if it is not a lead. So it is just >one of the variety of irregular ways that he can think up to display >one of his cards.+++ ... and thus must be played per L45C2, which means in effect that it is played. It is an interesting idea, Grattan, that a card that is played is not played because there is no trick to play it to, but I do not think the Laws support this construction. You know in your heart that declarer played a card and so did his LHO: what is not obvious is what they are played to but pretending they are not played does not work. I really think this case comes down to the following: Declarer played a card: to which trick? was it a lead? LHO played a card: to which trick? following what lead? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:34 +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 LAA12848 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:20 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuq-0001OE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:38:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse In-Reply-To: <000901bdfb7f$eb13be80$d83463c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Derek Rimington tells the story of a high-stake rubber bridge game in >which dummy's trump holding was KJ10x. Declarer led a card, LHO >followed, dummy's king was played and RHO followed suit. The jack was >led from dummy, and RHO played low before ostentatiously rearranging >his hand. "No need for that", said declarer. "I have the queen of >trumps." > >A more well-known and probably apocryphal tale may be unfamiliar to >some on the list. It concerns the great American player Hal Sims, >whose talent for sniffing out two-way finesses was legendary - he >seemed always to be able to discern which of his opponents was the >more on edge during the play. A deal came up in which Sims, declarer >in seven spades, was faced with a trump suit of AJ109x facing K8xx. >Winning the opening lead, he sat for several moments in thought before >he eventually exploded: "This is impossible! You've both got the >queen!" He was right, for the deal had been fixed in exactly that way. Declarer had AJ109x in hand and K8xx in dummy in trumps in 7H in another high-stake rubber game. "100 for honours" he said. LHO wrote it on his score-card, but RHO just ignored him. So he played a trump to dummy's king and a trump to his jack - which lost! Now declarer became annoyed: "Why did you write 100 on your score-card when you knew it wasn't true?" he asked. "Why did you claim honours when you didn't have them?" countered LHO. "I had the diamond queen accidentally mixed up in my hearts" said declarer. "Well then," said LHO, "I had the heart queen mixed up in my diamonds!" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:19 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12824 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:05 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuc-0001OE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:28:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Simon Edler wrote: >My opinion on this is that it is an inappropriate action. I would make >the same assumption that declarer is trying to work out percentages, >but surely declarer should do this before leading from hand? Absolutely not. There is so much thinking necessary in this game so why waste any? The queen might be singleton in West's hand and appear when a small one is led towards dummy. Even the ten will change the odds. To think before leading from hand is just bad play. >If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably >look at 74C7. With regard to Karen's solution, just be wary on how >you do it! (see law 74C6). L74C7 does not apply since he is pausing to think about the hand. >Now I guess I should answer Peter's question on when to call the TD. >Probably when the trick has been completed or after declarer has >made the play from dummy (in other words, as close to the infraction >as possible). I cannot see why you want to call the TD at all. I think your assumption that declarer is waiting for a twitch is nearly always wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:19 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12823 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:02 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQuc-0001OC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:40 +0000 Message-ID: <7CjfBjA4M8K2Ew2n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:54:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian TD day (2) In-Reply-To: <3621E2FD.65A7887C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >South, declarer in 4H, ruffs the second club trick. >South leads the 5 of hearts. >East, not having noticed the ruff, simultaneously leads the club 3. >TD! >(East has hearts) L58A is totally clear: the C3 is deemed as subsequent to the H5. Now when Herman says that East leads the C3 I think what he means is that East plays the C3 intending it as a lead. But is it a lead? Definitions: Lead - The first card played to a trick. So it is not a lead: it is the second card played to the second trick. Thus L57A applies. If you lead the relevant Laws and the Definition I believe this one is clear: intent is only relevant in one way: which trick did East play to? Well, he intended his card as a card on the second trick so it is not a fifth card played to the first trick. ******************* --- ******************* Laurie Kelso wrote: >I don't believe that L57A applies since East has not yet >played to the current trick, let alone led to the next one. >I will treat the club 3 as a simple defender's LOOT and deem it a >penalty card. Unfortunately it is played to the second trick and it was the second card so played therefore it is not a lead and cannot be treated as such. ******************* --- ******************* Herman De Wael wrote: >This one seemed to have everyone stumped. Oh? >At least, when you did not reply, I assume you thought the problem >trivial. I am *extremely* busy at the moment, and failure to reply quickly does not mean I am not going to! >Jan Boets, apparently on Ton Kooijman's authority, said that indeed L57A >should apply and that south should be allowed to ask the highest or >lowest from west. > >Defender has indeed "played out of turn before his partner has played". > >Comments ? What else has he done? ******************* --- ******************* Richard F Beye wrote: >>> I don't believe that L57A applies since East has not yet >>> played to the current trick, let alone led to the next one. >>> I will treat the club 3 as a simple defender's LOOT and deem it a >>> penalty card. >>That is what I, and three TD's before me, did at the table. >OPINION ONLY - This feels like the correct ruling for bridge play, that's >what we are trying to accomplish. Where book rulings are concerned we should be just ruling as the Laws require and not as we think desirable. >>Jan Boets, apparently on Ton Kooijman's authority, said that indeed L57A >>should apply and that south should be allowed to ask the highest or >>lowest from west. >> >>Defender has indeed "played out of turn before his partner has played". >OPINION - A matter of interpretation. Technically correct that we could >apply 57A, but in referring to 'The Scope of >the Laws' is this what the authors of the laws intend? East clearly thought >that he was leading; an error that occurred simulatenously with a legal >play, south's lead. East was not really playing prematurely; east was >merely leading out of turn, south does not have the opportunity to accept, >since his lead is legal; club three a penalty card. This is the wrong approach. We cannot use the Scope of the Laws because there are so many exceptions to the intent stated therein [check the revoke penalties, for example] that the Scope cannot be used as anything more than a generalised statement of intent for a majority of the Law book. East did not lead: the laws make that clear so we must not rule as though he had. >This seems to be the error that we must address. He has a penalty card. >It's going to take some bridge lawyering to convince me that, while some may >argue that 57A can be used here, it is the correct application of the laws. This is not bridge lawyering according to common usage of that term. Bridge lawyering is an attempt by a player to win at bridge by more than one method: in the cards, in front of the TD plus in front of the AC. None of that applies here where we have a situation and we wish to find the correct answer. >This interpretation may lead to another discussion of interpretation and >application. Many have opined about what the LC meant versus what can be >read into a law, or sequence of laws, when ruling. Applying 57A in the >above case does not feel like 'adequate remedy when there is a departure >from correct procedure'. Exactly. We cannot use the phrase in quotes as a basis for interpretation. ******************* --- ******************* Steve Willner wrote: >Seems 100% clear. South led, then (subsequently by virtue of L58A) >East put a card on the table. What excuse is there for not applying >57A? It seems exactly the situation 57A is supposed to address. I >must be missing something. Neither Steve nor I is ever really happy when we are 100% in agreement! ******************* --- ******************* Geoff Francis wrote: >I assume that L58A applies even if the cards were not in fact simultaneuos >(almost impossible to achieve!?) but South, looking only at his own cards to >decide on his lead, doesn't even notice Easts play. So L60A1 doesn't >apply - it only applies if South sees Easts play before his own and still >plays a card (hard to prove without some verbal statement). So L53C is also >relevant. This makes little sense to me. If the cards were simultaneous then L58A applies: if they are not simultaneous then it doesn't! Surely that is clear enough. If they are not simultaneous then either South played first and the situation is as in the rest of this article - L58A applies - or he didn't and the C3 was a LOOT [being the first card played to the trick not the second] and the H5 the second card played to the trick. Since South has no clubs this is a legal play in turn and condones the LOOT per L53A. >As for the argument "East clearly thought that he was leading; ..." this >requires a degree of judgement by the TD. L58A does start with "A lead or >play ..." so it doesn't matter what he thought he was doing, the deed was >done. Fair point. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 11:45:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:31 +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 LAA12844 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:18 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVQue-0001OD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:48:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:07:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws' headings - two questions In-Reply-To: <3626055C.967D722B@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Dear Sir > >Until some recent messages on blml i was sure - very sure - >I know what are the headings (the bold words near/under the >law's numbers.....). Now I am not .... >The two simple questions : >What is the formal definition of headings ? >How can I distinguish them without 0% of doubt - I = means >any novice player/reader ...... The headings are as follows: > CHAPTER V > THE AUCTION > > PART I > CORRECT PROCEDURE > > SECTION ONE > AUCTION PERIOD > > LAW 17 - DURATION OF THE AUCTION > > A. Auction Period Starts Everything above this line is a heading: there are Chapter headings, Part headings, Section headings, Law headings and subLaw headings. This is followed by ... > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner >looks at the face of his cards. ... the actual Law. I am not sure but I think that every Law and subLaw has its own heading except L12C3 [is that correct Niels?]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 13:32:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:32:11 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com ([205.138.218.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA13120 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:32:05 +1000 Received: from [207.226.96.1] by dc.isx.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA14911; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:35:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:07:35 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:28 +0100 10/20/98, David Stevenson wrote: > Absolutely not. There is so much thinking necessary in this game so >why waste any? The queen might be singleton in West's hand and appear >when a small one is led towards dummy. Even the ten will change the >odds. He took so long I began to think he wasn't just calculating the probabilities pertaining to this case but was indeed deriving the mathematical laws of probability and Bayesian inference from first principles. > > To think before leading from hand is just bad play. > >>If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably >>look at 74C7. With regard to Karen's solution, just be wary on how >>you do it! (see law 74C6). > > L74C7 does not apply since he is pausing to think about the hand. > >>Now I guess I should answer Peter's question on when to call the TD. >>Probably when the trick has been completed or after declarer has >>made the play from dummy (in other words, as close to the infraction >>as possible). > > I cannot see why you want to call the TD at all. I think your >assumption that declarer is waiting for a twitch is nearly always wrong. > OK, then, how long is considered too long for Declarer to call for a card from Dummy? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? Until the round is called? Peter From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 13:50:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:50:59 +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 NAA13162 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:50:50 +1000 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id XAA24040 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id XAA08426; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810200354.XAA08426@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 5th Friday game Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have finaly persuaded the director of the local Friday game to hold the BLML 5th Friday game. Could the person handling this please register us for the game, and send me the details ? Thanks. Tony (aka ac342) ps the club is called The Capital DBC (of course-- it is in Ottawa, the capital of Canada!) owned/directed by Ian Gibson, who has lurked on BLML--but not recently. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 14:55:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:55:10 +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 OAA13238 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:55:03 +1000 Received: from default (user-38lciul.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.213]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA04600 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981020005754.006aa9e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:57:54 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? In-Reply-To: <001201bdfbba$e9ac1660$843563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 AM 10/20/98 +0100, David wrote: >[snip] > > >This is important, since in the auction in question West has both AI >and UI. Together, these create a fairly clear picture of East's most >likely hand. AI - East very probably has 5+ hearts and 3- spades - >follows from the auction and West's own hand. UI - partner has about >9-12 hcp instead of 13+ hcp - follows from the tempo of East's double. > I don't mean to quibble, but when I have 13 and LHO overcalls 1NT, partner has 9-12 for his double, hesitation or no, unless the opponents are playing weak no-trump overcalls. That range is AI. What, then, are we left to conclude about the meaning of the hesitation, above and beyond that which can be inferred from the double itself? And even if we are oblivious to this ceiling on partner's HCP, the possibility that partner has a bigger hand doesn't necessarily make defending more attractive, since in addition to increasing the expected defensive gain, it increases the odds that we have a good score available on offense. Likewise, the possibility that partner is a tad light for his bid (which the hesitation does not necessarily suggest) decreases the expected return for either passing or bidding in roughly equal measure. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 21:14:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:14:31 +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 VAA13715 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:14:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVZnY-0004W4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:58:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Haglich wrote: >At 00:28 +0100 10/20/98, David Stevenson wrote: >> I cannot see why you want to call the TD at all. I think your >>assumption that declarer is waiting for a twitch is nearly always wrong. >OK, then, how long is considered too long for Declarer to call for a card >from Dummy? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? Until the round is called? That is a judgement for the Director at the time. Obviously there has to be some limit - but slow play as a generality is a very great problem. If the play on a board normally takes about five minutes: if a player generally moves play along and this is the one and only major think in the hand: if he does not delay players otherwise: perhaps four minutes might be allowed? If he and his partner are delaying things: if he is thinking whenever: if the table is late and it is not solely your fault: perhaps thirty seconds maximum? Let me ask another question. It was said that he was waiting for a twitch. Since then there have been sarcastic comments about working out probabilities: why is this assumed? Could the player not be trying o construct the unseen hands? If a player is delaying the game for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then that is illegal under L74C7. However, some players have a habit of ascribing bad motives to opponents' actions when there are better motives. This is a case in point: no, a player does not have the right to sit there solely for the purpose of waiting for a twitch but in the vast majority of cases a very long pause at a time like this one means that the player is having a very long think [or has forgotten it is his turn to play]. Maybe he is trying to calculate probabilities and work out the unseen hands and consider the bidding and he thought of all that and the state of the match and then he realised that the third card played must have been the beginning of a peter and that does not square with the hand that he has worked out so he will have to start again. Perhaps I might modify my first answer: if the player does take what seems just too long then it is reasonable to call the TD: not because you are suspicious of his actions but to draw the TD's attention to the length of time on this single play. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 20 22:51:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:51:40 +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 WAA13971 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:51:34 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id SONWa10440; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <689d710f.362c87e0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:53:52 EDT To: pbigfoot@pinn.net, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse 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 In a message dated 10/20/98 3:07:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pbigfoot@pinn.net writes: << He took so long I began to think he wasn't just calculating the probabilities pertaining to this case but was indeed deriving the mathematical laws of probability and Bayesian inference from first principles. >> You might bear in mind that thought is relative (in an Einsteinian way) - to the thinker the time goes by like a flash while to the one who's waiting it seems that even the air has turned liquid in the sitting. When timing huddles, I covertly check my watch. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 01:13:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:13:36 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16686 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:13:27 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10067 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:26:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >OK, then, how long is considered too long for Declarer to call for a card >from Dummy? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? Until the round is called? Some years ago I was playing against Benito Garozzo in the Life Master pairs at the summer NABC. He was in an inferior 3C contract (should have been 2N), which came down to a KJ guess in hearts. He postponed the guess as long as he could, and when he finally led towards the KJ and my partner played low, he took a full five minutes by the round clock to make his decision. Garozzo is known to be a very quick thinker, but on later analysis, I came to appreciate that he really did have 5 minutes worth of information to sift. PS - he got it wrong, and we scored 23- out of 25. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 01:54:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:54:21 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16769 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:54:08 +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 LAA08417 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA11730 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:57:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810201557.LAA11730@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness > >to the extent possible. > > ... but only to a practical extent. To achieve total > accuracy/fairness is not necessarily desirable because of the other > factors that are introduced. True. Another correspondent mentioned the potential for "sportsmanlike dumping," which some seemingly-fair conditions might encourage. That is to be avoided, even if the measures for avoiding it introduce some randomness. Tournament organizers need to balance conflicting interests, and the balance selected may depend on the nature of a particular contest, but at least we should be conscious of all the desirable goals. Of course some may think randomness is a good thing for a particular contest. I disagree but cannot prove them wrong except by analogy to other sports. Finally, we should all be aware that there is a certain degree of randomness inherent in the game of bridge, and no technical measures will remove it. The question is whether we wish to adopt measures to avoid increasing it. > >Seems clear enough. There are lots of applications to bridge, but one > >is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same > >infraction will always receive the same ruling. > > That is a terrible idea, and I hope we never introduce such a rule. > You really want to act against a beginner the same as a World Champion > in *every* situation? This sounds like a quibble unless there is really something here I don't understand. When the player's knowledge is a factor, then a beginner and a world champion are not involved in the same infraction. Certainly one's bridge judgment about, LA's, suggested over another, MI, irrational versus careless, and lots of other matters will depend on the skill of the players involved. But if we have trouble dealing with a simple technical infraction like a couple cards played out of turn (cf. the thread where declarer and LHO played while RHO still has the card that won the last trick turned up), something is wrong. (Wasn't there even some confusion about a revoke penalty, for crying out loud?) I would add (my personal hobbyhorse) that if the rules call for mind reading, something is wrong, but I know not everyone agrees with that. [protecting the field] > The need for it is not clear to me. I think it is another example of > muddled thinking. The need is a matter of simple fairness, as noted above. The question is what means one will adopt to achieve this desirable goal. David is probably reacting to the fact that horrible rulings are motivated by some notion of protecting the field. I have no sympathy for rulings that do not follow the laws. But David would never, for example, deliberately seed a field unfairly; he would protect the field by using fair seeding. And he wouldn't use an unbalanced movement unless there were some overriding reason why no balanced movement is acceptable. And he most certainly would protect the field by giving the best ruling he can in every case that comes to him. I hope all of us would do all of the above. Now if David wants to say "No ruling for an infraction at a single table should be influenced by any notion of protecting the field," I think he has a point. Other people disagree, and I think the best position is not clear. "Protecting the field" has led to abuses, as I noted, so if we are going to base rulings on it, we must have very clear guidelines as to what we should do. In the absence of such guidelines, I don't see how we can possibly base any ruling on this or any other such vague notion. I am not convinced that such guidelines are either possible or desirable (or that they are not), hence this discussion. Vitold's idea was to use L12C3 to protect the field, but I confess I don't see how it would work. ------ > Any of you who actually believe this nonsense of the new millennium > starting in 2000 [it starts on 1/1/2001] might like to read the article > explaining the matter on my Generalpage at > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm There is also an article in the FAQ for sci.astro, which has a new URL: http://sciastro.astronomy.net/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 02:01:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 02:01:30 +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 CAA16961 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 02:01:24 +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 JAA27226 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA08134; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:06:52 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:06:52 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810201606.JAA08134@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse David Stevenson wrote: > Absolutely not. There is so much thinking necessary in this game so > why waste any? The queen might be singleton in West's hand and appear > when a small one is led towards dummy. Even the ten will change the > odds. > To think before leading from hand is just bad play. Sorry, David, but you are wrong. It's better play to decide what to do given any of West's cards before leading from hand. That conceals your potential problem from the opponents some of the time. If you play the Jack from dummy smoothly, East might even duck it for whatever reasons of his own. If you tank before playing from dummy, he almost never will. This is more of an issue when you are leading towards a KJ looking for the Ace and Queen. If you tank before playing the King and are wrong, you will nearly always lose to the Ace. If you play smoothly, the opponent with the Ace may well play you for the Queen and duck. --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 Wed Oct 21 05:08:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:08:07 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17445 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:07:56 +1000 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:10:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from tntrasp18-87.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.87] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:10:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <362D6430.4010@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:33:52 -0700 From: Claude DADOUN Reply-To: ffb.dadadoun@wanadoo.fr Organization: FFB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 [fr] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: law 25B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Question on law 25b. in round robin NS offending side won 15 imp's on a board The result of the match without this board is 20-20 What the final result of the match ? 1) NS 20-23 and EW 20-35 (v.p.: 14-10 for 20 boards match) 2) 26-20 for NS and EW (V.P. 16-14) like in K.O. match (+15 imps -3imp) 1) look close to the law because the offending side is actually -3 IMP. 2) look more fair we can imagine the case OPEN ROOM CLOSE ROOM N E S W N E S W 1H 1S Pass! 1H 1S 2H 4S 2H 4S 5H X Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass +420 -1700 sorry, partner we are -3 IMP on this board. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 05:41:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:41:26 +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 FAA17542 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:41:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA26028; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:44:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.78) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025771; Tue Oct 20 14:42:31 1998 Received: by har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFC3F.C5370B20@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:39:05 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFC3F.C5370B20@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jeff Goldsmith'" Subject: RE: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:58:35 -0400 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Talk about harsh...where are you going to find the perfect phone company or isp that DOESN'T dump you repeatedly and unpredictably? I am online 8-9 hours a day via internet at work as a business necessity and it is the extremely rare day that we do not have a least half a dozen reconnects. We have been through 4 different isps...little difference. Many times the problem is at the other end or at known points in between identifiable with a tracert. I understand that there have been tournaments at okb where some people were disconnected a dozen or more times because of problems on the okb end. I find I am kicked out of the zone an average of twice in a 2 hour session...some people from other countries have worse experiences. This was not an unusual problem on bpl when I visited there either. Booting is a fact of online bridge life. If this happens only once in a long time, it's a miracle. Forget punishment. Hire the player to run your IS department. There would have to be some evidence a la rule of coincidence that something unusual has occured to warrant punishment for being kicked out. I agree that a pattern of offenses approach is indeed the way to go. ---------- From: Jeff Goldsmith[SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] (JAY Apfelbaum wrote)Any person who leaves during a hand, regardless of fault, is deemed to have conceded the rest of the tricks. If during the auction, they get an automatic zero. It is doubtful that one hand (however disastrous) will significantly affect that players rating. The rule is needed to prevent people from "crashing" their own connection to avoid a bad result. (Jeff G)Too harsh. Again, the "pattern of offenses" approach should be used. If the player does this a lot, he should be disciplined. He'll blame it on something, either his phone or computer or ISP or cat or whatever. For the first punishment, he gets 30 days to fix the problem (get a new phone or modem/computer or change ISPs or close the door so that the cat can't in or whatever); if the problem persists, then more serious punishment is in order. If it happens once in a long time, that's life---he probably didn't do it intentionally. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 05:45:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:45:07 +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 FAA17557 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 05:44:58 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:48:33 -0700 Message-ID: <362CE9BA.B9A927A6@home.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:51:22 -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: L12C3 redux (WAS: 4S permitted ?) References: <3.0.1.32.19981019111829.006977a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19981019173056.006df3e0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: In response to my: > >separately calculate the two scores resulting from L12C2 with resp. > >without action X considered an LA, then agree on some mixture that they > >feel would achieve "equity". As long as the final score is somewhere > >between two potential extremes resulting from L12C2, maybe even acbl'ers > >would see some sense in this? > >Is it any more "muddy", and open to abuse, than having to distinguish > >between "might seriously consider", "might think of", or "might bid > >under some circumstances" etc?? > > Far more muddy, and almost guaranteed to be abused (just consider the > extent to which ACBL ACs abuse L12C1). (snip) > Give 'em an "out" meant only for the genuinely tough cases > and they'll take it every time. > I'm afraid I remain in agreement with the ACBL that (a) L12C3 gives an AC > license to ignore L12C2 completely and report out any score they feel like, > with no constraint or restriction, I agree the ACBL TD's/AC's abuse L12C1 and might very well do the same with L12C3, but if you read what I wrote you'll see that the idea would not allow an AC to circumvent L12C2. On the contrary, the AC would have to come up with *two* L12C2 scores and then split them somehow. I intended that they have to account for how they arrived at the final adjusted score. This will motivate a lazy AC to really try to agree on LAs already in L12C2 so as to avoid having to go to C3. I repeat, my thought was that you could only go to C3 after having been to C2 already. At the very least this is better than what happens today, i.e. that AC briefly visits C2, finds it difficult to apply and "cops out" to C1 instead. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 06:01:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:01:42 +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 GAA17582 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:01:36 +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 QAA10096 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810202005.QAA03868@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <362D6430.4010@wanadoo.fr> (message from Claude DADOUN on Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:33:52 -0700) Subject: Re: law 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN writes: > Question on law 25b. in round robin > NS offending side won 15 imp's on a board > The result of the match without this board is 20-20 > What the final result of the match ? > 1) NS 20-23 and EW 20-35 (v.p.: 14-10 for 20 boards match) This is correct. In round-robin plays, scores need not balance. > 2) 26-20 for NS and EW (V.P. 16-14) like in K.O. match (+15 imps -3imp) Law 86B applies only to knockout play; it is needed there because one winner must be named in every match. This principle was established in the 1994 World Championships: The Director gave a ruling analogous to #2 (-400 for NOS, -50 for OS, compute IMPs and average), and the Committee indicated that this ruling was incorrect in its write-up, even though the Director was overruled (the table result of -400/+400 was reinstated) and thus the ruling wouldn't stand anyway. -- 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 Oct 21 06:26:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:26:44 +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 GAA17644 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:26:38 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:30:20 -0700 Message-ID: <362CF384.C0F3BC30@home.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:33:08 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: 2D permitted ? References: <199810191937.MAA17355@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is very rare, but here I totally, unequivocally disagree with Marv. Marvin L. French wrote: > Slow penalty doubles suggest doubt about playing the doubled > contract. Slow means doubt, fast means no doubt. Not doubt abt a specific end-contract (such as 1NTX) but simply abt whether or not X is the best bid with his hand. > Hence slow > suggests not passing the double, fast suggests passing it. Figuring > out why partner hesitated, or if bidding could lead to a bad > result, is not part of the equation. Totally wrong, imo. L16A obliges the recipient of UI not to chose an action suggested over another by the UI. This *clearly* neccesitates an evaluation of why pard might have hesitated. > Even if > bidding is more likely than pass to lead to a bad result (partner > has hearts, or hearts and clubs), bidding (i.e., not passing) is > suggested by the hesitation and is therefore forbidden when both > pass and bid are LAs. Pls read L16A. If both Pass and 2D are LAs, and the hesitation increases the *relative* likelyhood that Pass is succesful compared with 2D, then you are specifically *not* allowed to Pass! It is *relative*, not *absolute*, likelyhood of success that counts. In this case I'd figure pard's hesitation was between X and 2H, I'd figure that makes defending more attractive relative to declaring, and I'd thus feel L16A *forces* me to bid (I'd feel compelled to bid 3D but that's another matter). If later a TD or AC disagrees and explains why the UI suggests declaring rather than defending, I'll still have fulfilled my obligations as per L16A. A player is allowed to make a "mistake" when attempting to follow the Laws, as long as he *is* making a conscious attempt. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 06:54:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:54:00 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17718 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:53:51 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h48.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA04519; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 00:57:28 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <362D940C.289A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 00:58:04 -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: clear rules References: <199810201557.LAA11730@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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:) David Stevenson wrote (quotes from his post are written in quotation marks): Steve Willner wrote: >I think Vitold is telling us something very important here, and it is >well worth pondering the application of his general principles to >bridge. I can't claim all the applications are clear to me. > >> From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru >> 2. The same Rules, Laws, Regulations describe how contests should >>be provided, what is right manner of participants' fighting, which >>doings are forbidden, what is the method of comparing the results >>and of winner's defining. > >Seems clear enough. There are lots of applications to bridge, but one >is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same >infraction will always receive the same ruling. " That is a terrible idea, and I hope we never introduce such a rule. You really want to act against a beginner the same as a World Champion in *every* situation?" With greatest respect to DWS I should pointed that his question only underlined the most terrible idea I have ever met in sports - and I knew previously that this idea had a lot of followers among bridge TD even such format as DWS: participants may be treated unequally... Well - nobody wants "to act against a beginner the same as a World Champ in every situation": at club level beginners may be taught and forgivven. At regional contests they may be warned and punished. But at any kind of championships every participants (so beginners as grandmasters) are to be treated in equal manner (by the way - could player-participant of championship be a beginner?). Otherwise - it is not sport. And now I see that DWS has the same opinion as me - bridge (with its current Laws) is not sport at all:). The only difference is that I am conscious of this fact (and wrote about it several times) and DWS deems not to be:) >> As board's result is basic for defining the final position of >>participants - so we should protect equity for boards. And there >>may be two way: >> - local equity - equity between parties of the table where conflict >> happened (traditionally understood equity) >> - integral equity - equity inside line, protecting the field > >"Protecting the field" is controversial, of course. The need for it is >clear, but traditionally we have only tried to ensure local equity and >let field equity take care of itself. Maybe that isn't a bad approach. >Maybe it is the best we can do as a practical matter. But we should >know what we are doing and why. " The need for it is not clear to me. I think it is another example of muddled thinking. If you offer someone a fairly simple idea [such as the new millennium starts in 2000] then there is a tendency to accept it without thinking about it. In fact there is little reason why protecting the field has any desirability at all, or, to be totally fair, little reason that I have ever thought of or read or been told. I just think that protecting the field sounds fair so people assume it is. I believe we should abandon it as a concept because it does considerable harm to the game." As I can understood - all second indention is the same "fairly simple i dea" (as proposition of protecting the field) - no prove, only opinion and credo. And once more - it is credo of rubber bridge that named itself sportish game. So - I agree with DWS once more: the game we are playing is not sport:) >Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness >to the extent possible. " ... but only to a practical extent. To achieve total accuracy/fairness is not necessarily desirable because of the other factors that are introduced." To be sincere - I did not understand what was said by David: pro, contra or anything more? What are these other factors that make fairness not desirable? But nevertheles - it is an example of clear (not-muddle) argument:) >> I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for >>reaching the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for >>reaching the integral equity, with possible non-balance adjusted >>score (because integral equity often will be different for opposing >>lines). And it is TD's authority (under the current Laws) to protect >>field - even via starting the appeal procedure. > >This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested >before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? >(Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) " Sounds awful. Is this a suggestion of more differentiation between the work of the TD and the AC?" The main difference between TD and AC is that AC makes bridge decision on considerated cases. May be it was awful - to establish such a difference, but it was made earlier by our founders and confirmed a lot of times by our authorities. That's why L12C3 is written - for making bridge decision. Protecting the field is pure bridge decision - that's why it should be made (if any at all) by the AC. And there is no additional (all the more - awful) difference from such an idea.. But it were TDs who are obliged to protect participants and the very contest from any kind of abusing. And I would like to take part in discussion about such a protection - in favour of players. But there are no of it... May be - because we are rather TDs than players?.. I'd like to remind that my English is rather poor - so I used to use in my posts words and expressions from my counter-partners, especially previously unknown to me: then I am sure that I minimize my grammatical mistakes:) And I really do not want to hurt anybody, especially - highly respected (I am quite sincere) DWS - it is just my response:)) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 13:28:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA18547 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVp0c-0005Ud-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:32:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:21:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law 25B In-Reply-To: <362D6430.4010@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN wrote: >Question on law 25b. in round robin >NS offending side won 15 imp's on a board >The result of the match without this board is 20-20 > >What the final result of the match ? >1) NS 20-23 and EW 20-35 (v.p.: 14-10 for 20 boards match) This is correct. >2) 26-20 for NS and EW (V.P. 16-14) like in K.O. match (+15 imps -3imp) There is no provision in Law for doing this except in KO. it is quite normal for scores not to balance because of adjustments or fines. L86B is quite clear: it refers to knockout play so there is no reason for it to apply elsewhere. >1) look close to the law because the offending side is actually -3 IMP. >2) look more fair > > we can imagine the case > OPEN ROOM CLOSE ROOM >N E S W N E S W >1H 1S Pass! 1H 1S 2H 4S > 2H 4S 5H X Pass Pass >Pass Pass Pass Pass > > +420 -1700 > >sorry, partner we are -3 IMP on this board. There is no need for sympathy. L25B is a Law which allows players to claw back a non-bridge result that few believe they deserve after making a mistake. While I would just delete L25B and not allow any change of call that is not covered by L25A what is interesting is to see what the lawmakers have done. In 1987 they allowed players to guess a final contract. In 1997 they decided this was undesirable: they allowed the auction to continue but reduced the Os score to no more than 40%. In 1998 they decided to stop L25B being used with a change of mind and allow it solely to avoid "stupid mistakes". Hopefully the progression will continue in 2007. Je suis tres heureux de voir vous ici, Claude. Avez-vous de chats? J'apologise que mon francais est tres mal! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 13:28:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA18548 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVp0c-0005Uc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:32:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:36:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <362D940C.289A@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >>Seems clear enough. There are lots of applications to bridge, but one >>is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same >>infraction will always receive the same ruling. >" That is a terrible idea, and I hope we never introduce such a rule. >You really want to act against a beginner the same as a World >Champion in *every* situation?" >With greatest respect to DWS I should pointed that his question only >underlined the most terrible idea I have ever met in sports - and I knew >previously that this idea had a lot of followers among bridge TD even >such format as DWS: participants may be treated unequally... >Well - nobody wants "to act against a beginner the same as a World >Champ in every situation": at club level beginners may be taught and >forgivven. At regional contests they may be warned and punished. >But at any kind of championships every participants (so beginners as >grandmasters) are to be treated in equal manner (by the way - could >player-participant of championship be a beginner?). Otherwise - it is >not sport. And now I see that DWS has the same opinion as me - >bridge (with its current Laws) is not sport at all:). The only difference >is that I am conscious of this fact (and wrote about it several times) >and DWS deems not to be:) As has been pointed out here several times it is normal in other sports for different applications of rules at different levels. The idea of not treating a World Champion the same as a beginner is *similar* to other sports not the reverse. >>"Protecting the field" is controversial, of course. The need for it is >>clear, but traditionally we have only tried to ensure local equity and >>let field equity take care of itself. Maybe that isn't a bad approach. >>Maybe it is the best we can do as a practical matter. But we should >>know what we are doing and why. >" The need for it is not clear to me. I think it is another example of >muddled thinking. > If you offer someone a fairly simple idea [such as the new millennium >starts in 2000] then there is a tendency to accept it without thinking >about it. In fact there is little reason why protecting the field has >any desirability at all, or, to be totally fair, little reason that I >have ever thought of or read or been told. I just think that protecting >the field sounds fair so people assume it is. I believe we should >abandon it as a concept because it does considerable harm to the >game." >As I can understood - all second indention is the same "fairly simple i >dea" (as proposition of protecting the field) - no prove, only opinion >and credo. And once more - it is credo of rubber bridge that named >itself sportish game. So - I agree with DWS once more: the game we >are playing is not sport:) The game we are playing is a sport: it is the game where the BLs have taken over that is not a sport, and the notion of protecting the field is solely designed to help BLs. >>Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness >>to the extent possible. > >" ... but only to a practical extent. To achieve total >accuracy/fairness is not necessarily desirable because of the other >factors that are introduced." > >To be sincere - I did not understand what was said by David: pro, >contra or anything more? What are these other factors that make >fairness not desirable? But nevertheles - it is an example of clear >(not-muddle) argument:) It is not desirable for fairness to be treated as so important that you get rid of reasonable timing: enjoyable events: rating systems that players enjoy: scoring that can be understood. The idea that it does not matter how unpopular, badly run, unsuitable, unfriendly and generally dislikeable an event is so long as it is fair is bad for the game. >And it is TD's authority (under the current Laws) to protect >>>field - even via starting the appeal procedure. >>This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested >>before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? >>(Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) >" Sounds awful. Is this a suggestion of more differentiation between >the work of the TD and the AC?" >The main difference between TD and AC is that AC makes bridge >decision on considerated cases. May be it was awful - to establish such >a difference, but it was made earlier by our founders and confirmed >a lot of times by our authorities. Not at all. In English clubs they trust their TDs to make judgement decisions so they do not appeal. And in NAmerican clubs? Try and get an AC! I know that some of you will explain how ACs are good, fair and available in your NAmerican club, but I have been reading RGB for long enough now to know how many NAmerican clubs do not have any adequate appeals system whatever. It is clearly a matter of great difference around the world how decisions are split between TDs and ACs and we do not want to take too much away from TDs in view of the number of decisions they make where the ACs behind them are either less competent or not available. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 17:29:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA19177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:29:16 +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 RAA19172 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:29:09 +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 JAA12208 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:32:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J385FR2P9C000D50@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:32:44 +0200 Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:32:38 +0200 Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:32:38 +0200 From: KOOYMAN Subject: L25B, what else? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11CAAA602400 X400-MTS-identifier: [;5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Starting to read the last contribution on 25B I expected to be dealt with a pair having an agreement that a pass changed by a bid means that partner has to pass now. It would have been another good example of our 'stupidity' to have 25B as it is. Happily enough it appeared to be a simple calculation question, thank you. Still there is something to say about this issue. Reading our minutes I am not so happy here. Our issue in the WBF-meeting talking about 25B was the question whether south may change his last call if after having made it, his partner does something irregular through which this partner is barred from the auction. If LHO didn't call yet, may south change his call? There is some reason to allow this. South opens a mancheforcing 2clubs after which his partner passes out of turn. If the opponents do understand the laws, and the TD should explain them, south is going to play 2clubs now, which could be a very good score but more likely is not. Discussing this subject we established the fact that the possibity of changing a call was ment for a player who made a 'stupid' call and not for cases as described above. Therefore we decided that our 2club bidder is stuck to this call, can't change it anymore. We did not decide that the TD has to establish the fact that the player made a stupid call, in order to allow him to change his call. It is up to the player to decide for himself that his call was stupid. The TD never makes such a decision during play and furthermore there would be an undeserved advantage for the player who doesn't wait for the TD and changes his call at once, in which case 25B applies. So 'stupid' is not part of the laws, nor of the interpretation. It simply was used in the discussion leading to our conclusion. So, let us forget it. I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may be, to keep his house clean. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 18:29:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:29:01 +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 SAA19279 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:28:54 +1000 Received: from modem60.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.188] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zVth3-0008Li-00; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:32:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:30:27 +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. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? > Date: 20 October 1998 00:50 > > Grattan wrote: > > > The reason I say "exposed a card" is that I do not accept he > >has contributed the card to the previous trick and there is as yet > >no subsequent trick to receive it if it is not a lead. So it is just > >one of the variety of irregular ways that he can think up to display > >one of his cards.+++ > > ... and thus must be played per L45C2, which means in effect that it is > played. > +++ Well, if we go down this route the result is that Declarer's card is not a penalty card; defender's card is a penalty card. [Laws 45E1 and 45E2.]. I have to agree that until quitted and no lead to the next trick the trick is still current. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 19:50:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:50:17 +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 TAA19442 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:50:09 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05461 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:53:11 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id JAA07913 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:52:16 +0100 (UTC) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981021095325.007d7b60@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:53:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L25B, what else? In-Reply-To: <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:32 21/10/98 +0200, KOOYMAN wrote: >Still there is something to say about this issue. Reading our minutes I am not >so happy here. Our issue in the WBF-meeting talking about 25B was the question >whether south may change his last call if after having made it, his partner >does something irregular through which this partner is barred from the auction. >If LHO didn't call yet, may south change his call? There is some reason to >allow this. South opens a mancheforcing 2clubs after which his partner passes >out of turn. If the opponents do understand the laws, and the TD should explain >them, south is going to play 2clubs now, which could be a very good score but >more likely is not. >Discussing this subject we established the fact that the possibity of changing >a call was ment for a player who made a 'stupid' call and not for cases as >described above. Therefore we decided that our 2club bidder is stuck to this >call, can't change it anymore. We did not decide that the TD has to establish >the fact that the player made a stupid call, in order to allow him to change >his call. It is up to the player to decide for himself that his call was >stupid. The TD never makes such a decision during play and furthermore there >would be an undeserved advantage for the player who doesn't wait for the TD and >changes his call at once, in which case 25B applies. >So 'stupid' is not part of the laws, nor of the interpretation. It simply was >used in the discussion leading to our conclusion. So, let us forget it. > >ton Could you please be more precise with the conclusions and decisions of Laws Comitee in Lille? Maybe due to my insufficient knowledge of English language, I am very confused by the apparent inconsistency between: - changing a call was meant for... ; bidder is stuck to his call... - it's up to the player to decide ... - stupid is not part of the laws ...; let us forget it Which are now, with the official interpretation of L25, the restrictions (if any) to changing a call before LHO's call? 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 Wed Oct 21 21:13:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:13:30 +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 VAA19557 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:13:23 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-209.uunet.be [194.7.13.209]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20633 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:16:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362DC5FD.BE739502@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:31:09 +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: Re: law 25B References: <362D6430.4010@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bienvenu Claude, pour ta premiere contribution. Welcome Claude, Claude DADOUN wrote: > > Question on law 25b. in round robin > NS offending side won 15 imp's on a board > The result of the match without this board is 20-20 > > What the final result of the match ? > 1) NS 20-23 and EW 20-35 (v.p.: 14-10 for 20 boards match) > 2) 26-20 for NS and EW (V.P. 16-14) like in K.O. match (+15 imps -3imp) > > 1) look close to the law because the offending side is actually -3 IMP. > 2) look more fair > The first response is an easy one. NS score -3, so they have 14VP EW keep their bad score of -15, so they have 10VP. The result would be 14/10. However, there is a more fundamental problem. How is an AV- (or an AV+ for that matter) to be scored in team play. IMO, the score from the other table should not dissapear completely : > we can imagine the case > OPEN ROOM CLOSE ROOM > N E S W N E S W > 1H 1S Pass! 1H 1S 2H 4S > 2H 4S 5H X Pass Pass > Pass Pass Pass Pass > > +420 -1700 > > sorry, partner we are -3 IMP on this board. If the 5H save is an absolutely ludicrous one, then we could say that the 19IMPs that were lost were only due to the closed room. I might be inclined to award NS +19-3 = +16 (19VP) and EW -19 (10VP). I have once suggested this can be done by re-awarding the AV- : 100 points less than some average score. So in this case, if +420 is the normal score, I would rule that 25B is applied in saying that NS shall not score more than +320. Since they do score +420, their score is reduced to +320, and compared to -1700, this is still +19. But I realise this is a very strange concept. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 21:27:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:27:24 +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 VAA19603 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:27:17 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVwTh-0002V5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:30:57 +0000 Message-ID: <46iDpCAXScL2Ew9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:25:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25B, what else? In-Reply-To: <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: >Discussing this subject we established the fact that the possibity of changing >a call was ment for a player who made a 'stupid' call and not for cases as >described above. Therefore we decided that our 2club bidder is stuck to this >call, can't change it anymore. We did not decide that the TD has to establish >the fact that the player made a stupid call, in order to allow him to change >his call. It is up to the player to decide for himself that his call was >stupid. The TD never makes such a decision during play and furthermore there >would be an undeserved advantage for the player who doesn't wait for the TD and >changes his call at once, in which case 25B applies. >So 'stupid' is not part of the laws, nor of the interpretation. It simply was >used in the discussion leading to our conclusion. So, let us forget it. I am afraid that it is a little late for 'stupid' to be forgotten now. Fresh advice has already gone out from our country's organisation to its TDs. If the bidding goes 1H P 3H P 4NT P 5D P P then we permit the pass to be changed to 5H [the Kaplan position]. Others have claimed that to let them play in 5D is wrong and they should be allowed the bridge result of 5H: my view [which I believe to be a majority view] is that bridge is a game of mistakes, 5D is the bridge result, and to allow the change is to get an artificial result the pair does not deserve. Well, that may be my view, and I hope it prevails in 2007, but it is not the case now. L25B exists, so if the player wishes to change his call, and if he has won "the race", ie tried to change it before LHO calls, we allow it to be changed subject to the provisos of that Law. Now consider a case such as the one from the Welsh Ladies Trials discussed here some time ago. I cannot remember the bidding, but after making her first bid, one player decided her approach to the whole hand was wrong, and asked to change her bid. It was a change of mind: both bids were forcing so there was no question of her being left in a 'stupid' contract. According to the 1997 Laws she is allowed to change her call ["Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not apply:": note the word "may"] so we should allow such a change. We then receive the minutes from Lille: 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 players judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law. This seems clear enough to me, Ton. It says that such a change of mind is not permitted. Moreover, this was read and understood that way by various others in the EBU organisation. They understood that we no longer allow changes under L25B unless they are to correct a 'stupid mistake'. >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no >time for it. Them's fighting words, mister! I have referred them to Quango, who says he will deal with you in good time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 21:27:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:27:30 +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 VAA19610 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:27:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVwTe-0002U5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:30:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4agDBGAdTcL2Ewfx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:26:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: 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, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh 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 Sergey Kapustin Liza 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 Big Mac 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 Wed Oct 21 21:52:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:52:47 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.1.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19688 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:52:40 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA22993 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:55:51 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:55:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: law 25B In-Reply-To: <362DC5FD.BE739502@village.uunet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > However, there is a more fundamental problem. I think the fundamental problem in this discussion is that people tend to think of a team as 2 independent pairs, rather than as one big unit. Suppose this was a soccer match and one of the players of a team tackles his opponent. The referee will now penalize the team and void all play after to the infraction. If one of the 10 other players scored a goal in the meantime, that is irrelevant. If we translate this to Claude's example: > > OPEN ROOM CLOSE ROOM > > N E S W N E S W > > 1H 1S Pass! 1H 1S 2H 4S > > 2H 4S 5H X Pass Pass > > Pass Pass Pass Pass > > +420 -1700 > > sorry, partner we are -3 IMP on this board. then we have something similar. The open south committed an infraction, so the team, not just the open NS pair or the just the south player, is penalized for that. 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 Wed Oct 21 22:02:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:02:19 +1000 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA19762 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:02:13 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 3GDGa02343 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2095aa59.362dce03@aol.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:05:23 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: clear rules 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 When Laws were discussed in the drafting committee's meetings (or at the ACbl Laws Commission meetings), Edgar always spoke about the application of the Law in question to Sadie Cumquat (his nomenclature for a club player) and there was definitely no intention by Edgar (or the rest of us, indeed) that Sadie should be held to the same standards as .. um .. Bobby Wolff, let's say or even ruled in the clubs with the same fierce interpretation of some of the more ambiguously written Laws. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 21 22:32:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:32:35 +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 WAA19850 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:32:27 +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 OAA09922 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:36:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J38G0KMO9C000DTA@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:35:20 +0200 Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:34:35 +0200 Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:34:35 +0200 From: KOOYMAN Subject: L25B, what else more? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <6235341421101998/A03872/EXPERT/11CAABA22200*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11CAABA22200 X400-MTS-identifier: [;6235341421101998/A03872/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk explanation. I don't know OK-bridge, which should be changed soon. If OK-bridge is what I think it should be, the programme does not allow irregularities. Bids and play out of turn is not accepted, instead a message is given: stupid, wait your turn (or after 20 minutes waiting:' sir, do you know it is your turn to play?'). This means that nobody is aware of any technical infraction. Pauses for thought or sleep still exist. Under those circumstances a player is allowed to change his call till LHO makes a call. That is what the WBFLC decided for more normal play too. You are not allowed to change your call based on information coming from outside after you made your original call. Some time ago one of this group, not enthousiastic about 25B (who is?), described the situation in which LHO with a big smile started to produce his red X-card, after which in a split second and before the X-card touched the table our player changes his call (or something similar, LHO hopefully saying :'are you sure about your call?') The WBFLC has decided in Lille that in those circumstances a player is not allowed to change his call. Yes I know that it will not always be easy to make the right distinction, but the LC is not there for the comfort or benefit of the TD's (joke). And certainly not for those with cats and/or dogs (serious). ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 01:10:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:10:41 +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 BAA22547 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:10:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zVzxJ-00070d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:13:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:23:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law 25B In-Reply-To: <362DC5FD.BE739502@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >However, there is a more fundamental problem. >How is an AV- (or an AV+ for that matter) to be scored in team play. >IMO, the score from the other table should not dissapear completely : > >> we can imagine the case >> OPEN ROOM CLOSE ROOM >> N E S W N E S W >> 1H 1S Pass! 1H 1S 2H 4S >> 2H 4S 5H X Pass Pass >> Pass Pass Pass Pass >> >> +420 -1700 >> >> sorry, partner we are -3 IMP on this board. > >If the 5H save is an absolutely ludicrous one, then we could say that >the 19IMPs that were lost were only due to the closed room. >I might be inclined to award NS +19-3 = +16 (19VP) and EW -19 (10VP). >I have once suggested this can be done by re-awarding the AV- : 100 >points less than some average score. >So in this case, if +420 is the normal score, I would rule that 25B is >applied in saying that NS shall not score more than +320. >Since they do score +420, their score is reduced to +320, and compared >to -1700, this is still +19. > >But I realise this is a very strange concept. It is not a strange concept to include the score from the other room, and might be a reasonable suggestion to the WBFLC for the future, but it is an illegal one. You cannot issue scores in defiance of the Laws of bridge. L25B2B2 says that the offending side may receive no score greater than average minus and L86A defines that as -3 imps. I am afraid that what you are trying to do is in contravention of L12B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 02:28:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:28:34 +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 CAA22949 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:28:28 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-138.uunet.be [194.7.13.138]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA25575 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:32:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362DD5E9.26E249E2@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:39:05 +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: Re: L25B, what else? References: <3.0.5.32.19981021095325.007d7b60@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > Could you please be more precise with the conclusions and decisions of > Laws Comitee in Lille? > Maybe due to my insufficient knowledge of English language, I am very > confused by the apparent inconsistency between: > - changing a call was meant for... ; bidder is stuck to his call... > - it's up to the player to decide ... > - stupid is not part of the laws ...; let us forget it > > Which are now, with the official interpretation of L25, the restrictions > (if any) to changing a call before LHO's call? > > JP Rocafort > I have interpreted this Lille decision as such : L25B means that players can change their calls. But we don't want them to change their mind. So we tell them they can only change "stupid" calls, they cannot change their minds. However, if they fool us, we can do nothing, and we should apply L25B anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 02:48:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:48:46 +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 CAA22992 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:48:41 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zW1Ul-0003x3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:52:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:34:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Peter Haglich writes >At 00:28 +0100 10/20/98, David Stevenson wrote: >> Absolutely not. There is so much thinking necessary in this game so >>why waste any? The queen might be singleton in West's hand and appear >>when a small one is led towards dummy. Even the ten will change the >>odds. > >He took so long I began to think he wasn't just calculating the >probabilities pertaining to this case but was indeed deriving the >mathematical laws of probability and Bayesian inference from first >principles. > >> >> To think before leading from hand is just bad play. >> >>>If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably >>>look at 74C7. With regard to Karen's solution, just be wary on how >>>you do it! (see law 74C6). >> >> L74C7 does not apply since he is pausing to think about the hand. >> >>>Now I guess I should answer Peter's question on when to call the TD. >>>Probably when the trick has been completed or after declarer has >>>made the play from dummy (in other words, as close to the infraction >>>as possible). >> >> I cannot see why you want to call the TD at all. I think your >>assumption that declarer is waiting for a twitch is nearly always wrong. >> > >OK, then, how long is considered too long for Declarer to call for a card >from Dummy? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? Until the round is called? > >Peter Until the TD fines him for slow play :) -- 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 Oct 22 03:36:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:36:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23215 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:36:21 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zW2Ep-0002u2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:40:00 +0000 Message-ID: <+MlOP1AJjhL2EwO+@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:24:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Cats and directors (was L25B, what else?) In-Reply-To: <46iDpCAXScL2Ew9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <46iDpCAXScL2Ew9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > >>I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no >>time for it. > > Them's fighting words, mister! I have referred them to Quango, who >says he will deal with you in good time. > I have consulted with Gnipper and Figaro, they are 1-1. Gnipper, who walks on my keyboard when I play okB, ("miaow, *Undo please* the cat mis-moused") is of the view that there are no nice cat pictures on blml, and hence I must be stupid so I can't be a good director. She approved of DWS's web page when I showed her, ("brb showing cat some porno piccies") and put a paw print in the middle of the screen, so next hand I only had 12 cards as the DK was behind the smudge - Digression: "/revoke" is a wonderful pseudo-okb command along with "/peek". Taking the last trick with the D7 invokes "/ftp beer" Figaro OTOH (who has more fleas than Jason and the Argonauts) is a great fan of my directing as it means I'm out of the house and so he is not being powdered with "Rid-flea", or being manhandled while we attach flea-collars. He can't see the point of DWS's cats but likes to chase the fish in my "fishscape screen saver", but then he is stupid, so I'm not sure if his vote counts. Being stupid is a put-on job though as he seems to get his share of the available mice and fledglings. Perhaps Quango and nanki-poo would care to hold in-depth interviews :) -- 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 Oct 22 04:49:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:49:16 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23583 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:49:09 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA28553 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:52:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028436; Wed Oct 21 13:52:02 1998 Received: by har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFD01.DC413EE0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:48:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFD01.DC413EE0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: clear rules Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:16:18 -0400 Encoding: 52 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] It is not desirable for fairness to be treated as so important that you get rid of reasonable timing: enjoyable events: rating systems that players enjoy: scoring that can be understood. The idea that it does not matter how unpopular, badly run, unsuitable, unfriendly and generally dislikeable an event is so long as it is fair is bad for the game. ### You make the argument for omitting the skip bid warning, allowing defenders to enquire "no spades partner", and opting out of 12C3 very well.### (SNIP) In English clubs they trust their TDs to make judgement decisions so they do not appeal. And in NAmerican clubs? Try and get an AC! ### In English clubs...and it is partly due to you...the TD's seem to be rather more well trained than is the norm here. Good rulings have less need of appeal. ACs are somewhat discouraged at the club level because they take up a lot of time during which the paying customers don't get a final result. It is frequently difficult to find enough players of truly high quality to make up a proper committee. A lot of the lesser players fail to properly understand the role of an AC and/or lack the bridge judgement to rule well. There is often little at stake at this level; people want to go home after the session; no one wants acrimony in what is primarily a social environment in which Monday's opponent may be your regular every-other-Wednesday partner. All of these militate for improving the quality of directors' rulings to obviate the necessity of many appeals.### I know that some of you will explain how ACs are good, fair and available in your NAmerican club, but I have been reading RGB for long enough now to know how many NAmerican clubs do not have any adequate appeals system whatever. ### Quite so. ### It is clearly a matter of great difference around the world how decisions are split between TDs and ACs and we do not want to take too much away from TDs in view of the number of decisions they make where the ACs behind them are either less competent or not available. ### Well put. It is also possible, as you folks demonstrate, to train TD's well. From whence are you likely to get the horde of potential AC members to undergo training? ### Craig -- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 06:46:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:46:40 +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 GAA24073 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:46:31 +1000 Received: from p58s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.89] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zW5Cu-0001ce-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:50:13 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L25B, what else? Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:56:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdfd35$4211d1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:27 PM Subject: Re: L25B, what else? Much snipping > Now consider a case such as the one from the Welsh Ladies Trials >discussed here some time ago. I cannot remember the bidding, but after >making her first bid, one player decided her approach to the whole hand >was wrong, and asked to change her bid. It was a change of mind: both >bids were forcing so there was no question of her being left in a >'stupid' contract. According to the 1997 Laws she is allowed to change >her call ["Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A >does not apply:": note the word "may"] so we should allow such a change. >We then receive the minutes from Lille: > > 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 players judgement. As the > intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes > an interpretation of the Law. > > This seems clear enough to me, Ton. It says that such a change of >mind is not permitted. Moreover, this was read and understood that way >by various others in the EBU organisation. They understood that we no >longer allow changes under L25B unless they are to correct a 'stupid >mistake'. The hand David refers to was from the actual International Competition, not the Trials. To remind folk I reproduce it below. 5 nations Ladies Home Internationals K76 K92 A854 KT3 T52 J93 J8765 T3 void T763 J8764 AQ92 AQ84 AQ4 KQJ92 5 Dlr W N/S Game N E S W P 1D- P -2D*(1S) TD?? S expressed the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S. She said she had not made a mechanical error but wished to change her bid to 1S. South had remembered that she was not playing Inverted Minor Suit Raises, so her 2D bid was not forcing, and her partner would have been left in a Stupid contract. I wonder, however, is this the type of stupidity that Kaplan referred to? This player had, albeit momentarily, forgotten her system. Now that the WBFLC has ruled that we use this Law in a way that protects players from their own stupidity do you think it intends us to use Law 25B on this hand. Is it a pre-requisite that a player says to the TD, "I have been stupid and done so & so?". That can apply to many situations, patently not intended to be included. e.g. "I've been stupid and used Stayman with a 6 card major" "I've been stupid and tried to transfer into a 4 card suit" "I've been stupid and opened 1NT with a void" I was finding this Law workable before the WBFLC got its hands on it. Now I need more guidance. PLEASE!! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 07:20:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:20:26 +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 HAA24153 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:20:18 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h48.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA29418; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:23:57 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <362EEBC3.4A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:24:35 -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: clear rules References: <2095aa59.362dce03@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_7.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_7.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David:) Hi all:) As usual - making discussion more understandable David's (DWS) quotes are written in quotation marks. Steve Wilner wrote (commenting my previous post): >> There are lots of applications to bridge, but one >>is that the rules should be clear enough to ensure that the same >>infraction will always receive the same ruling. "That is a terrible idea, and I hope we never introduce such a rule. You really want to act against a beginner the same as a World Champion in *every* situation?" With greatest respect to DWS I should pointed that his question only underlined the most terrible idea I have ever met in sports - and I knew previously that this idea had a lot of followers among bridge TD even such format as DWS: participants may be treated unequally... Well - nobody wants "to act against a beginner the same as a World Champ in every situation": at club level beginners may be taught and forgiven. At regional contests they may be warned and punished. But at any kind of championships every participants (so beginners as grandmasters) are to be treated in equal manner (by the way - could player-participant of championship be a beginner?). Otherwise - it is not sport. And now I see that DWS has the same opinion as me - bridge (with its current Laws) is not sport at all:). The only difference is that I am conscious of this fact (and wrote about it several times) and DWS deems not to be:) " As has been pointed out here several times it is normal in other sports for different applications of rules at different levels. The idea of not treating a World Champion the same as a beginner is *similar* to other sports not the reverse." I'd like to make/repeat several remarks: - it is un-sportish to treat different participants in the same championship with differ calibre of demands - such doing is not normal in other sports - there are exclusions (as in any rule) but all the exclusions make handicap to World Champions (or even "grands" at that sport): they join to the contest at later (Champion - even at last) stage of the contest - and even in those sports there is strong opposition to such doing, because main reason of that procedure is attempt to make more show at last stages of the contest (and to purchase more tickets and at higher price) Steve wrote: >>"Protecting the field" is controversial, of course. The need for it is >>clear, but traditionally we have only tried to ensure local equity and >>let field equity take care of itself. Maybe that isn't a bad approach. >>Maybe it is the best we can do as a practical matter. But we should >>know what we are doing and why. " The need for it is not clear to me. I think it is another example of muddled thinking. If you offer someone a fairly simple idea [such as the new millennium starts in 2000] then there is a tendency to accept it without thinking about it. In fact there is little reason why protecting the field has any desirability at all, or, to be totally fair, little reason that I have ever thought of or read or been told. I just think that protecting the field sounds fair so people assume it is. I believe we should abandon it as a concept because it does considerable harm to the game." As I can understood - all second indention is the same "fairly simple idea" (as proposition of protecting the field) - no prove, only opinion and credo. And once more - it is credo of rubber bridge that named itself sportish game. So - I agree with DWS once more: the game we are playing is not sport:) " The game we are playing is a sport: it is the game where the BLs have taken over that is not a sport, and the notion of protecting the field is solely designed to help BLs." Wow - now I see that I misunderstood David. Then - I should notice that the last sentence is no more than one more credo. If we had used similar arguments - the discussion would be non-sensed. But I tried to explain and prove my position... Whenever DWS writes his arguments - I will try to dispute them. Period of credo's exchanging we have already passed - several threads ago:) Steve wrote: >>Application to bridge: use a fair movement, and minimize randomness >>to the extent possible. > " ... but only to a practical extent. To achieve total accuracy/fairness is not necessarily desirable because of the other factors that are introduced." To be sincere - I did not understand what was said by David: pro, contra or anything more? What are these other factors that make fairness not desirable? But nevertheless - it is an example of clear (not-muddle) argument:) " It is not desirable for fairness to be treated as so important that you get rid of reasonable timing: enjoyable events: rating systems that players enjoy: scoring that can be understood. The idea that it does not matter how unpopular, badly run, unsuitable, unfriendly and generally dislikeable an event is so long as it is fair is bad for the game." It seems that I do not English at all - or David did not read this passage?:) "Unpopular, badly run, unsuitable, unfriendly and generally dislikeable an event" cannot be fair - under the common sense, under the definition of fairness, under the Lord knows what else. I am surprised with David's words. Lille's contest is example to demonstrate the above position... And it is TD's authority (under the current Laws) to protect field - even via starting the appeal procedure. Steve commented: >>This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested >>before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? >>(Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) " Sounds awful. Is this a suggestion of more differentiation between the work of the TD and the AC?" The main difference between TD and AC is that AC makes bridge decision on considerated cases. May be it was awful - to establish such a difference, but it was made earlier by our founders and confirmed a lot of times by our authorities. " Not at all. In English clubs they trust their TDs to make judgement decisions so they do not appeal. And in NAmerican clubs? Try and get an AC!" "Not at all" - what?:) Does it prove or upset position about difference between AC and TD? Does it describe or explain David's position? One post before David wrote about "more differentiation between...TD and AC". Then - he knows that there is some difference. Does the sentence make David's position more clear? Or simple - it describes situation in EBU and ACBL? Thanks, I know something about it - and now I will know more: English players used not to appeal. And what if one appeals? Is there any stand-by AC for such case? Because if English clubs have - then sorry, I completely do not understand what was main thought of the sentence:) I guess that rather English ACs were over-struggle by TDs - under DWS leadership:) It proves rather weakness of English ACs than explains difference between AC and TD. " I know that some of you will explain how ACs are good, fair and available in your NAmerican club, but I have been reading RGB for long enough now to know how many NAmerican clubs do not have any adequate appeals system whatever." So - we start new theme: differences between AC in differ parts of the world. OK: - not only some of us think that NA club's AC are good, fair etc.; it was David who were staying at that position several threads ago - and then I agreed with him completely - these AC make their job with great competence within ACBL rules - mine is rather Russian, not NAmerican, and in my country I defend the position that our AC are too weak for making any decision; but it proves only that AC are weak and National Organization should seek way to teach them, not ignore the fact that we need AC for making bridge decision - it was David's reading RGB that changed his mind about NAmerican ACs, wasn't it? by the way - I guess that RGB is read not only by David:) And it makes me sure that I have chance to change David's mind too - I will try:) " It is clearly a matter of great difference around the world how decisions are split between TDs and ACs and we do not want to take too much away from TDs in view of the number of decisions they make where the ACs behind them are either less competent or not available." Hmm - but nevertheless AC's mistakes usually hurt two conflicting parties and make some (slight) influence onto the field. From the other hand - TD's mistakes may change all the results of contest (see - Lille). And as we discuss the sportish merit - I mean usually national, international contests, championships etc. - not club games. Really - we have at Lille several doubts AC's decision. From almost one hundred. And one TD's mistake ruined the whole pair championship (or - might ruin). So - it may be that AC are less competent, but stake of TD's mistake is higher. So - we need both of them, differ and with various authority. And English example is not to desirable - personally for me. I prefer ACBL way, although I know some problems inside it. Best wishes, sorry for being too longish. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 08:43:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:43:08 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f209.hotmail.com [207.82.251.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24355 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:43:03 +1000 Received: (qmail 2861 invoked by uid 0); 21 Oct 1998 22:46:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19981021224616.2860.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.209 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:46:15 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.209] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:46:15 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold, one thing you (and this thread) should know about those of us from ACBL-land; a large number of our tournaments (not the NABC's (3 per year, in all of NA), but a lot of regionals (drawing, say, a state or two) and almost all sectionals (drawing a county or 5) ) have as their only event for the day a Stratified game. In this, the different levels of players are seeded into sections. so that there are say 7 Flight A pairs, 4 Flight B pairs, and 4 Flight C pairs, in each direction, in each section. The good part, from the Flight C point of view, is that you can win Flight C by getting the highest score of all flight C pairs only, Flight B by getting the highest score of all Flight B and C pairs, Flight A by winning the section (and similarly for the field, in multi-section games). But you play each of the pairs opposite you during the game, regardless of their skill. So I could be facing Eric Sutherland and Mike Roberts (from our Junior International team) for Boards 1-2, Joe and Jenny Arbuthnot from Nowhere, Ontario for 3-4, and the pair of Life Masters who got their 300 points 15 points a year for 20 years for 5-6. And Eric and Mike are facing me, and the Joe Randoms, and the good players in turn, too. Now, in this situation, it is hard to have one set of Laws, equally enforced, for all competitors in the event, while not having one set of Laws, equally enforced, for World Champions and (almost) beginners alike. There are many things wrong with Stratified games (I'm sure 10 ACBL members could give you 10 different problems), but they did work in keeping attendance up (for the last xxx years, anyway; it may be changing now), and they are the norm in the ACBL. And while they exist, the Laws, and their application, must be able to deal with it. Of course, my answer is to make clear rules, and make Bridge not paired with golf as the games with the most players who don't know their rules. But I'm at a loss as to how to do either of those two. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 10:56:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:56:39 +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 KAA24835 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:56:32 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-5.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.171]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA10894 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362E8482.9DE91231@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:04:02 -0400 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I used to call all the Vu-graph events at the NABC's and did the same job in Albuquerque. I sat with the players that were on view. At one of the sites (NABCs) we were in the finals of the event and nearing the end. Paul Soloway was playing as a defender. Paul as Garozzo was down to three cards and he was in a real quandary as to which card he should play. He started to think and think, and think....After about 15 minutes, we finally all got up from the table leaving Paul to his problem. We all had coffee or soda, made a pit stop, had a cigarette, looked out the windows, anything we could think of to kill time. The Vu-Graph announcers rehashed the hands, played it several ways, and generally vamped until Paul made a decision. Bart Bramley, one of the announcers, commented that Paul was in trouble 'cause the longer he thought more chance he had to make a mistake. Finally after at least 1/2 hour or more... he made his play and Yep, it was wrong!!!!! Don Kersey wrote: > >OK, then, how long is considered too long for Declarer to call for a card > >from Dummy? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? Until the round is called? > > Some years ago I was playing against Benito Garozzo in the Life Master > pairs at the summer NABC. He was in an inferior 3C contract (should have > been 2N), which came down to a KJ guess in hearts. He postponed the guess > as long as he could, and when he finally led towards the KJ and my partner > played low, he took a full five minutes by the round clock to make his > decision. Garozzo is known to be a very quick thinker, but on later > analysis, I came to appreciate that he really did have 5 minutes worth of > information to sift. > > PS - he got it wrong, and we scored 23- out of 25. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 > Kingston, Ontario, Canada > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Nancy T. Dressing From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 10:58:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:58:59 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24852 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:58:52 +1000 Received: from modem114.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.114] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zW998-0006iN-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:02:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:49:08 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ========================================== > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Revoke > Date: 10 October 1998 11:58 > > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >At the local dupe tonight I was called to the table -------------------\x/------------------------\x/----------------- > David Stevenson wrote > It is true that the wording of L64A2 is poor. in England/Wales a club > TD would be unlikely to get a pass in their test without a good > understanding of revokes. Despite RTFLB I would expect any club TD who > has passed the test to be able to do revokes without the Law book. > > L64A2: > and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the > offending player, then, > if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, > (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the > non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was > subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he > could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick > is transferred to the non-offending side. > > The wording is heavy-handed -----------------------\x/-----------------------------\x/-------------------- --------- > > This reading of the Law cannot be right. It is therefore assumed that > the law means that subsequently refers to subsequent to the revoke. > What does this mean? Well, it means that the Lawmakers meant that if > there are two tricks available after and including the revoke then two > tricks are transferred. This is the normal interpretation of this Law. > > Perhaps the lawmakers could note that this wording could be worked on > a bit for 2007 [and for 2003: the equivalent Rubber Law is worse while > meaning the same!]. > +++++ 64A2 is not the best dressed law in the world; its drafter thought the reference back of the later 'subsequent(ly)' to the earlier one was evident; it is not on a strict reading of the English and we are again relying on interpretation to get the intention of the law right. What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about niceties of language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and bridge lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them. But on the other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. 64A2 would have stated its meaning more carefully if it had said "......also, if additionally such a trick was won by the offending player with a card that.........." - but then I am a legislator and history records that the desire of such to bind the wording of laws and regulations in hoops of steel is scorned by the masses as 'legalistic'. I do not change nor desist simply because I do not legislate for the masses, who play their bridge essentially without the need for laws, but for the challenging minority. So, OK Mr. Stevenson, this too goes on the memory board. In the meantime perhaps I should admit I would have missed this item altogether had I not stirred, before deleting it all as purely a TD's item, to see what had brought Karen Allison into the discussion. And there's a kettle of fish: 'active ethics' seems to be something regarded somewhere as a kind of supplement to the laws. Well, my view is that the laws say quite clearly that the game should be played in strict accordance with the laws and that the laws define correct procedure. Therefore it is proper and honourable (also honorable) to play the game in strict accordance with its laws. 'Active Ethics', insofar as these may add anything to what the laws prescribe, is a voluntary matter and extraneous to the requirements of law unless promulgated as a regulation specifying procedures in a manner not conflicting with the Laws.] OK OK I'm going back to bed..... I am supposed to be nursing a virus. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 12:15:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:38 +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 MAA25067 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:30 +1000 Received: from modem3.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWALI-0002tq-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:19:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:46:30 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse > Date: 20 October 1998 00:28 > > Simon Edler wrote: > >My opinion on this is that it is an inappropriate action. --------------\x/----------------------------\x/---------------------- David Stevenson: > L74C7 does not apply since he is pausing to think about the hand. > ++++ That is sophistry. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 12:15:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:37 +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 MAA25066 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:29 +1000 Received: from modem3.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWALG-0002tq-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:19:11 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: L25B, what else? Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:21:08 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: L25B, what else? > Date: 21 October 1998 21:56 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:27 PM > Subject: Re: L25B, what else? > > Much snipping > > >We then receive the minutes from Lille: > > > > 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 players judgement. As the > > intention of the Committee this statement of intention > constitutes > > an interpretation of the Law. > > > > This seems clear enough to me, Ton. It says that such a change of > >mind is not permitted. Moreover, this was read and understood that way > >by various others in the EBU organisation. They understood that we no > >longer allow changes under L25B unless they are to correct a 'stupid > >mistake'. ++++ Ton's doubts create a difficulty. The words "stupid mistake" and "e.g. passing a cue bid" are direct quotes of words spoken in committee by a member of it for which general agreement was heard around the table. I have no doubt the minute correctly reflects what we did; whether we did what we wanted to do is a discussion for another day. The minutes have been ratified by the WBF Executive and I am sure Ton recognizes they are not susceptible to change now. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 12:38:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:38:40 +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 MAA25115 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:38:33 +1000 Received: from modem23.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.151] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWAhb-0000Ta-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:42:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Grattan" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:41:24 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] > 64A2 would have stated its meaning more carefully if it had said > "......also, if additionally such a trick was won by the offending player > with a card that.........." > +++ Sorry, even that is not careful enough. Try "....also, if an additional such trick was won by....."+++ # Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 17:50:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:50:41 +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 RAA25694 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:50:34 +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 JAA02055 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:54:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199810220754.JAA02055@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: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:55:11 +0000 Subject: Card played from dummy? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dummy (North), s AJ52 h - d - c 10943 has made the last trick. Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". East: "Director!" Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, say 10987? Thanks in advance for comments. JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 19:21:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:21:51 +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 TAA25857 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:21:45 +1000 Received: from modem54.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWGzk-0005DZ-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:25:27 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:24:20 +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. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: Michael Farebrother > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: clear rules > Date: 21 October 1998 23:46 > > Vitold, one thing you (and this thread) should know about those > of us from ACBL-land; ===============\x/============== > Now, in this situation, it is hard to have one set of Laws, equally > enforced, for all competitors in the event, while not having one > set of Laws, equally enforced, for World Champions and (almost) > beginners alike. ===================\x/============== > Of course, my answer is to make clear rules, and make Bridge not > paired with golf as the games with the most players who don't know > their rules. But I'm at a loss as to how to do either of those two. > ++++ I have a lot of sympathy for what you say, and for those trying to organize bridge in a complicated environment. One thought constantly occurring to me is that a law or regulation which says "Thou shalt not sin" is far more difficult to apply than one that says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". After all, amongst bridge players there could be those who do not consider adultery a sin (or find it convenient to adopt the view on the day) and who will argue their case so. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 21:27:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:27:49 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA26156 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:27:41 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.152] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWIul-0005f9-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:28:24 +0100 Message-ID: <006701bdfdaf$85817580$983463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:31:32 +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 "This particularly rapid unintelligible patter isn't generally heard, and if it is, it doesn't matter." (W S Gilbert) If L64 is to be rewritten (and a jolly good thing too), then I think it could be made quite a lot more intelligible. I have always wondered why 64B appears before 64A. If I were a novice TD, I would find it a great deal easier to check for the conditions in 64B first (did declarer make the rest? was it dummy that revoked? and so forth) before ploughing into the morass that is L64A and then discovering that I need not have bothered anyway. The other great advantage of this would be that by the time you get to the new 64B (the current 64A), you know that the offending side has won at least the revoke trick, which eliminates a great deal of circumlocution from the present 64B2. As to 64A, it might help in the interests of brevity to define some terms (also, this will clear up the problem with "offending player" that occurs when declarer has revoked on dummy's trick): Revoke trick = the trick on which the revoke occurred Revoke card = the card played as a revoke Revoker = the player of the revoke card [New ] L64B Unless L64A [No Penalty Assessed] applies, then when a revoke is established, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. If the offending side won more than one of the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks, then an additional trick is transferred to the non-offending side if: The revoke card won the revoke trick; or The revoker won a trick with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick. No need, really, to mention that this last proviso means "subsequent to the revoke" - a player can't legally play a card that he has not physically got! I have not been through this with a fine comb, nor am I sure how it stacks up to the problem of more than one revoke on the same trick (but I don't know how the Laws handle that at the moment). But it looks OK from here. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 21:39:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:39:48 +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 VAA26189 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:39:38 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-20.uunet.be [194.7.13.20]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03336 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <362F2438.4F89D714@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:25:28 +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: heart nine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday, something funny happened. After the lead and the first trick, leader said "I know who has the nine of hearts". Everybody laughed. My partner, the declarer, thereupon stuck the heart nine to his forehead. It stayed there. Now I was thinking. Suppose a few tricks later, my partner forgets this card (he doesn't see it, after all) and tries to ruff a heart. Am I, as dummy, not having lost my limited rights (I have done nothing in L43A2), entitled to point to his forehead ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 22 23:48:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:48:02 +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 XAA26590 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:47:55 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.48] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWL80-0006K9-00; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:50:12 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bdfdc3$19c78c80$302b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:51:41 +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 [snip] > After all, amongst bridge >players there could be those who do not consider adultery a sin (or >find it convenient to adopt the view on the day) and who will argue >their case so. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ > Quite so. As it was put to me at a tournament in Wales a short while ago: "In former times, if you committed adultery then you got stoned. At the Porthcawl Congress, it's the other way around." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:19:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:19:18 +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 AAA28898 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:19:11 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA1092 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:22:35 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981022161915.00996b90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:19:15 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? In-Reply-To: <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:55 22-10-98 +0000, you wrote: >Dummy (North), > >s AJ52 >h - >d - >c 10943 > >has made the last trick. >Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". >East: "Director!" > >Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > >Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, >say 10987? > > >Thanks in advance for comments. > >JP > wel, that depends on if it is a change of mind or not. The TD has to establish this. If no change of mind is involved, i think it is allowed to change (45c4b) the problem is of course that only the suit is mentioned,perhaps 46b2 helps in this case. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:49 +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 AAA29052 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:40 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFk-0001SZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:16:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI Ruling In-Reply-To: <362261D1.1C673651@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> This looks interesting to me: >> >> A7 Dlr: W >> A3 Vul: N/S >> J7 >> KJx AQT9xxx Txx W N E S >> KQT9x Jxxx 1H 2C 3Ha P >> KT A9863 ..P 3Na X 4D >> KJ2 Q9864 x P P X P >> 8x P 5C X AP >> Q542 >> 8x >> >> This was an international trial. 3H showed a good raise to 2H. South >> was not asked for the meaning of 3NT, which he believed to be for the >> minors. > >a) E's 1st X disallowed. Pass was LA and pard's slow pass suggested X >over pass. Agreed. > E's 2nd X is more borderline. Without the alert I'd tend not >to allow it, but the alert makes it more likely that we can beat both 4D >and 5C (contrary to another poster's opinion, I think it's clear that >3NT* can only show a sidesuit in diamonds) even when pard is minimum. >Pass might still be a LA though. The decision at the time was that Pass was not an LA, so this double was allowed. >b) N's 5C disallowed. S's alert of 3NT is UI to N. If S prefers 4D over >3NTX/4C when 3NT is "natural", why on earth should N prefer 5C (i.e. >opposite say xxx xx QT9xxxx x)? Agreed. >S would've bid 4D even after 3NT (P), so E's 1st X didn't cause damage. Agreed. >Thereafter it gets trickier. >Instinctively I'd like to consider both sides as "OS" for the purposes >of an adjusted score, thus giving NS -1700 in 4DX and EW +600 in 4D, >although I'd accept if table-result (+1100) stands for EW. Very interesting! It was actually decided to treat both sides as offending, but since the second double was allowed but not the 5C bid the final contract was adjusted to 4Dx in both cases. Perfect defence comes to six down: imperfect but reasonable defence comes to four down, so the ruling was that N/S got 4Dx-6, -1700, and E/W got 4Dx-4, +1100. > (This might >be a case where L12C3 could be applied to EW). The AC upheld the TD - at least they gave the same scores! One learned commentator said that the TD's decision was illegal and the AC's decision was bonkers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:41 +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 AAA29045 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:34 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFj-0001SU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:07:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Scoring at cross-imps In-Reply-To: <001f01bde5c9$ae6b59a0$2b69ffd0@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >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. --- and --- Jan Romanski wrote: >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-. From the event that started this thread we discovered that this is unfair. Cross-imps flatten the scores, and +3/-3 is just too much. ------------------------------------- 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. ############# I wonder where this sqrt of (8X) comes from. It does seem to be fairer than +3, perhaps too small. ------------------------------------- Sergei Litvak wrote: >In Russia we divide the result to the number of comparisons and give +2/-2 >for A+/A- both in Cross-Imps and buttler. Better than +3/-3 certainly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29055 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFm-0001T4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:35:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+++++ 64A2 is not the best dressed law in the world; its drafter >thought the reference back of the later 'subsequent(ly)' to the earlier >one was evident; it is not on a strict reading of the English and we >are again relying on interpretation to get the intention of the law right. >What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge >lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about niceties of >language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and bridge >lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them. But on the >other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by >pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. I think this comment is totally and completely unfair. The normal meaning ascribed to the term "bridge lawyer" is a player who wishes to have three strikes on a board before he is out. What we have in this thread and others are people whose understanding of some Laws is less than total. In this particular thread it started with one of BLML's nicest people getting told she had the Law wrong, and asking for help. I am prepared to help such people for as long as they wish to ask questions. If you think that this makes it a breeding ground for bridge lawyers then no-one is forcing you to remain here. > 64A2 would have stated its meaning more carefully if it had said >"......also, if additionally such a trick was won by the offending player >with a card that.........." - but then I am a legislator and history >records that the desire of such to bind the wording of laws and >regulations in hoops of steel is scorned by the masses as 'legalistic'. >I do not change nor desist simply because I do not legislate for the >masses, who play their bridge essentially without the need for laws, >but for the challenging minority. You define a person who asks for a ruling on a revoke as a member of a challenging minority? > So, OK Mr. Stevenson, this too goes on the memory board. In >the meantime perhaps I should admit I would have missed this item >altogether had I not stirred, before deleting it all as purely a TD's item, >to see what had brought Karen Allison into the discussion. Indeed. Possibly next time you might stir yourself to realise that when one of our members is told she is wrong and asks for help that it is maybe an item that should not be beneath our notice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:26 +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 AAA29037 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:20 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFW-0001S7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:13:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: <36193A88.59579322@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >> > Thus it becomes interesting >> > to tell them all your previous results. >> > ######### And illegal! ######## >(and to be pedantic : it is not illegal to tell something, it is illegal >to listen to it !) An interesting but perverse conclusion. If player A attempts unsolicited to tell player B something to his advantage it would not be player B that gets the one-year ban. As far as the legalities are concerned perhaps you could justify this comment please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:57 +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 AAA29057 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFr-0001SZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:58:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: <199810152228.SAA08356@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Are we really in the unhappy position of having to divine South's >intention in order to rule on a simple, mechanical error? If so, I >suggest Grattan take down another note. Personally, I'd have had no >problem ruling "fifth card." That is what South has _done_, regardless >of what he might have _intended_. No, he did not. He played a card to the second trick. The problem is that at that time there was no second trick, but saying it is a fifth card played to the first trick when it wasn't does not seem to be the answer. If we followed your interpretation then whenever anyone led without waiting for the last trick to be turned down it would be treated as a fifth card played to the previous trick. Maybe we should rule it that way - but we don't, and I believe it would require a change of Law. If you think of what you want when players are casual I think the current arrangement is best. So we are distinguishing between fifth cards played to a trick and cards played to the next trick. ------------------------------------- Grattan wrote: >+++ Well, if we go down this route the result is that Declarer's card >is not a penalty card; defender's card is a penalty card. [Laws 45E1 and >45E2.]. I have to agree that until quitted and no lead to the next trick >the trick is still current. The Laws give us no concept of a trick being current. What they allow for is the twin possibilities of a fifth card being played to one trick, presumably until it is quitted, and the possibility of a card being played to the next trick before the last trick is quitted. ------------------------------------- I think, having read all the submissions carefully, that we have to make a judgement as to which trick a card belongs. Despite Steve's dislike of deciding what goes on in a player's brain TD's are continually making judgements based on all the factors available and this is likely to be one of the easiest. Note that we are only deciding what really happened by our judgement and not the player's intent. Having decided that the card from declarer is played [to be pedantic, is or must be played] to the second trick it becomes the Lead to that trick [see Definitions] even if not intended as such, and the next player's card is played to that lead. Thus the next player's card is subject to the normal revoke and penalty card rules if it is a revoke. It also condones the lead [which was out of turn]. As I remember the original case, declarer "ruffed" RHO's card and LHO "overruffed": thus there was no revoke and play continues from there. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:58:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:59 +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 AAA29066 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFt-0001SU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:03:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke - Dummy - End of Hand In-Reply-To: <01bdebc0$82a76aa0$21c6420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >Jay, unfortunately 'Active Ethics' is not a part of the laws. I don't know about this. There is more than one definition of Active Ethics, of course, but if you look at some definitions all they do is repeat the requirements set out in the Proprieties. In some cases Active Ethics are no more than the opinion of a one group as to how you should act. There is no reason for them to be in the Laws since the opinions are not universal. I think that in most cases where most reasonable players think a course of action should be followed under Active Ethics then such a course of action is already required by the Laws: where opinions are split then the requirements of Active Ethics are not in the Laws nor should they be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 00:59:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:59:01 +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 AAA29072 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:58:49 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWMFt-0001SO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:02:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:33:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <199810172023.QAA20172@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kent wrote: >OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? > >Do we need to modify some laws? Or do the SOs just >need to adopt some new regulations like we do for >screens. If only regulation changes/additions are needed, >what do you think they need to cover? > >Some ideas to consider: Dealing the hands, identification >of players, alerting regulations, procedures to report >suspected unauthorized information, procedures to >investigate and resolve such reports, etc. It is important that we develop Laws for OLB to allow for the very real differences. One of the best examples is the Law that does not allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe it should thus be allowed. Policing the Laws is more difficult in some ways. Some people, in the charming way those people have, suggest that no unenforceable Law is ever acceptable because everyone will ignore it. While this is nonsense, and not everyone is dishonest, it is a good idea to avoid Laws that are not entirely necessary and difficult to enforce. IMO at bridge generally ignorance of the rules causes far more problems than deliberate attempts to avoid them. Thus we want sensible Laws even if in many cases people will have to police themselves. Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, and as with any other form of the game, alerting should be beneficial as far as possible for the players that play under that jurisdiction. In OKBridge, for example, ACBL alerting would be a terrible idea, because the jurisdiction is different: OKBridge is not NAmerican, but world- wide. Regulations are required for communication between partners. There are ongoing arguments amongst OKBridge players as to whether partners should be allowed to communicate by phone, ICQ or sitting next to each other. Various stupid suggestions have been made! What we do not want is some sort of witchhunt McCarthy type approach, but the first thing is to decide what is allowed. Since the question was asked by someone involved heavily in the ACBL, I wonder whether it is connected with OKBridge. Specifically for OKBridge it is very important that the ACBL do not decide to bring rules into OKBridge that wrecks it by making it NAmerican. I have no problem with ACBL-OKB ties so long as this is understood. Hand security is not a major worry. There will always be some who cheat, but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut has never been a satisfactory method, and suggestions that we should invade people's personal privacy because of worries in this area are counter- productive, unnecessary and probably illegal. Having decided on the rules [Laws or Regulations] to cover inter-person communication there is no need then to go overboard on the matter. After all, cheating will still occur: better would be to try to come up with some adequate penalties. It is important that the game of bridge is not ruined for the majority because the authorities are too worried by the few. Similarly, crashes occur: that is the nature of computers and the Internet. For the authority to overreact by treating crashes as cheating is not the way to go. Bill Segraves has produced a copy of a proposed set of OLB Laws. Unfortunately I have not had time to go through them but I intend to do so and will produce detailed proposals in due course. However, I think we need to consider carefully who is the Sponsoring Organisation and what control the Service Provider has. Whatever we do, it is very important that we are intending to promote Bridge, not regulate it to death. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 01:23:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:23:08 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (root@[128.163.132.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29233 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:22:55 +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 LAA10094 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA28399 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:26:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810221526.LAA28399@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:26:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl> from "Jan Peter Pals" at Oct 22, 98 09:55:11 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 > > Dummy (North), > > s AJ52 > h - > d - > c 10943 > > has made the last trick. > Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > East: "Director!" > > Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? Please define "........"--is that a pause or a continuation of the word "club," indicating that the designation is not complete? If it's a pause for thought, L45C4b applies, and a LOW club is played. If it's something like "cluuuuuuuuuuuuub--no, wait--play the SA" (where -- indicates no pause) then the SA is allowed. > Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > say 10987? No. L46B2 states that if "club" is the designation, it is to be interpreted as "lowest club." John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 01:34:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:34:38 +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 BAA29275 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:34:30 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F1800GE1JFOAP@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:38:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA13305; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:38:08 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:38:07 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? In-reply-to: <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl>; from "Jan Peter Pals" at Oct 22, 98 9:55 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F1800GE2JFOAP@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP, Depends on change of mind or not (45C4b ,also 46B in the heading). 1. If not change of mind then because 45C4b he may change it. 2. If change of mind then may not change it and then 46B2 and that means club 3. If he was taking finesses with first club J then I suppose he will go on with club 10. Depends on his holding and and what he discovered during the play before this trick. -------------------------------------------- > Dummy (North), > > s AJ52 > h - > d - > c 10943 > > has made the last trick. > Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > East: "Director!" > > Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > > Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > say 10987? -------------------------------------- No I do'nt see why. -------------------------------------- > > Thanks in advance for comments. > > JP > ---------------------------------- 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 Fri Oct 23 02:39:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 02:39:33 +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 CAA29566 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 02:39:26 +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 LAA16301 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981022124048.007b8b90@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:40:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <199810172023.QAA20172@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 10/22/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > It is important that we develop Laws for OLB to allow for the very >real differences. One of the best examples is the Law that does not >allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI >implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. >In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you >are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe >it should thus be allowed. How about a detailed set of system notes? I have about 40 pages worth of system notes with my regular partner. Should I be permitted to refer to those notes? What if I take all the excess verbosity out of the notes and reduce it simply to sequences and principles (my partner often suggests that the notes could be condensed to one page)? Would this qualify as a convention card? Convention card files (text version) for OKbridge can actually contain more information than a standard ACBL CC, and can take more than one page to print out. Would there be a limit on how much information would be allowed for reference? I have on my desk a copy of "The Dictionary of Suit Combinations." From time to time I will look up a suit combination after playing a hand to see if I took the right line. Should I be able to refer to the book before I play the hand? This would generate no UI for partner. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 03:13:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:13:25 +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 DAA29639 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:13:20 +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 KAA09976 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA11676; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:19:00 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:19:00 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810221719.KAA11676@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) |David Stevenson wrote: | |Herman De Wael wrote: | |>> > Thus it becomes interesting |>> > to tell them all your previous results. | |>> > ######### And illegal! ######## | |>(and to be pedantic : it is not illegal to tell something, it is illegal |>to listen to it !) | | An interesting but perverse conclusion. If player A attempts |unsolicited to tell player B something to his advantage it would not be |player B that gets the one-year ban. | | As far as the legalities are concerned perhaps you could justify this |comment please. It's true within the context of normal UI. In the context of actions that may be disciplined, of course, it's not. Hmmm...I've noticed recently that a moderately successful local player is quite careless with his private score in pair games. More than once I have asked him to cover them. He shrugs and acts as if I shouldn't care. Of course, it's to his advantage that his F2F opponents get to see his scores. I *know* all his opponents who have even adequate vision (that leaves me out) can see all his scores. I have never once heard anyone in one of these events call the director for having accidentally obtained UI. I think, by the way, that should someone do it from his score, that the director should give him a PP of the difference between the Ave+s assigned and 50%, as he caused an adjusted score to be needed at another table. If *I* were the director, I'd tack on a bit more as I know he does this all the time. --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 Fri Oct 23 03:32:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:32:58 +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 DAA29712 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:32:49 +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 TAA15575 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:36:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:35:59 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDFDF3.3241B850.bernscherer@parsec.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: heart nine Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:35:58 +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 Herman De Wael [SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] wrote: Yesterday, something funny happened. After the lead and the first trick, leader said "I know who has the nine of hearts". Everybody laughed. My partner, the declarer, thereupon stuck the heart nine to his forehead. It stayed there. Now I was thinking. Suppose a few tricks later, my partner forgets this card (he doesn't see it, after all) and tries to ruff a heart. Am I, as dummy, not having lost my limited rights (I have done nothing in L43A2), entitled to point to his forehead ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Make sure to ask your partner only, as pointing towards anybody's head is taken as an insult in many regions of this world. Christian -- Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria bernscherer@parsec.at From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 03:38:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:38:17 +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 DAA29728 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:38:12 +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 KAA16420 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA11710; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:43:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:43:53 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810221743.KAA11710@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations David Stevenson wrote: | It is important that we develop Laws for OLB to allow for the very |real differences. One of the best examples is the Law that does not |allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI |implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. |In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you |are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe |it should thus be allowed. I don't. In very casual play, it's fine---in such a case, it'd even be OK to ask partner, "do we play weak or strong jump shifts," in the middle of the auction. In anything mildly competitive, a general allowance of aids is unacceptable. If such a rule were to be made, a line would have to be drawn. Should I allow GIB to play the hand for me? Or my buddy? There's a social reason not to allow even system aids. Players who look up every bid in a complex auction (I've played against them) take a fair bit of time to play, enough so to make the game less pleasant. | Policing the Laws is more difficult in some ways. Some people, in the |charming way those people have, suggest that no unenforceable Law is |ever acceptable because everyone will ignore it. While this is |nonsense, and not everyone is dishonest, it is a good idea to avoid Laws |that are not entirely necessary and difficult to enforce. This is a different question. I believe that unenforced laws are evil. This is different from so-called unenforcable laws. "Unenforced laws" are those that can be enforced, but are not. For example, in baseball, the catcher is not allowed to block the plate unless he has the ball. Yet, catchers are allowed to do this without it. It'd be a travesty if someday, in a particularly important game, an umpire were to decide suddenly to enforce this obstruction rule. (Just ask Fred Merkle.) | Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, and as |with any other form of the game, alerting should be beneficial as far as |possible for the players that play under that jurisdiction. In |OKBridge, for example, ACBL alerting would be a terrible idea, because |the jurisdiction is different: OKBridge is not NAmerican, but world- |wide. The solution is to decide what SO has sovereignty over each on-line service. Presumably, it's the service itself. In that case, they get to make their own alerting rules. A question arises if such a service is to award ACBL masterpoints. Is the ACBL the SO in any way? For the purpose of discipline, the ACBL BoD has stated that the ACBL will not deal with OLB problems. Does that extent to events in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded? That's for the BoD to decide. If I were to vote, I'd suggest they stay out of it. | Since the question was asked by someone involved heavily in the ACBL, |I wonder whether it is connected with OKBridge. Specifically for |OKBridge it is very important that the ACBL do not decide to bring rules |into OKBridge that wrecks it by making it NAmerican. I have no problem |with ACBL-OKB ties so long as this is understood. I suspect the masterpoint issue is rearing its head. Does the ACBL have a responsibility of sorts to its members to oversee events in which its awards are being given? Remember, only certain games will be ACBL OLB games. Players can opt not to play in those if they have different rules. | Hand security is not a major worry. There will always be some who |cheat, but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut has never been a |satisfactory method, and suggestions that we should invade people's |personal privacy because of worries in this area are counter- |productive, unnecessary and probably illegal. Having decided on the |rules [Laws or Regulations] to cover inter-person communication there is |no need then to go overboard on the matter. After all, cheating will |still occur: better would be to try to come up with some adequate |penalties. It is important that the game of bridge is not ruined for |the majority because the authorities are too worried by the few. I concur. Cheats will be found out anyway. There's no need to make the bridge experience unpleasant. Jay Apfelbaum, however, was considering the possibility of running a major championship via computer. In that case, I think some sort of monitoring is reasonable, but the obvious choice is to require human monitors for such (rare) events. | Whatever we do, it is very important that we are intending to promote |Bridge, not regulate it to death. In practice, OLB has made its own rules and prospered with them. I think they should more or less stay as they are. In any case, as each OLB service is a business trying to attract customers, much like a bridge club, the regulations they choose are likely to be those that promote bridge. They'll probably ignore (or be allowed to ignore) rules that significantly negatively impact their business, just as ACBL clubs do. In other words, don't fix it if it ain't broke. But it's reasonable to consider laws for OLB in the abstract. If a good idea arises from such consideration, it will probably be used. --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 Fri Oct 23 04:40:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:40:48 +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 EAA29926 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:40:40 +1000 Received: from christian (c010.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.10]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA19126 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:44:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:43:32 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:43:31 +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 Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: Board 4 W/all DBT8x KTx 9xx DT AKxx xx Bx ADxx ADxx Kx xxx Kxxxx 9x 9xxx BTxx ABx West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He ducked, won the second spade and ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and another diamond West claimed nine tricks without further statement. Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played until then) they recognized that declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1. Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for the game, and the score of +600 should stand. Could you please tell me your opinions. Best regards, Christian -- Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria bernscherer@parsec.at From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 04:41:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:41:36 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (root@[128.163.132.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29941 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:41:30 +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 OAA17395 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA03752 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:45:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810221845.OAA03752@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: heart nine To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:45:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <362F2438.4F89D714@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Oct 22, 98 01:25:28 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 > Yesterday, something funny happened. > After the lead and the first trick, leader said "I know who has the nine > of hearts". Everybody laughed. > My partner, the declarer, thereupon stuck the heart nine to his > forehead. It stayed there. > > Now I was thinking. > > Suppose a few tricks later, my partner forgets this card (he doesn't see > it, after all) and tries to ruff a heart. > Am I, as dummy, not having lost my limited rights (I have done nothing > in L43A2), entitled to point to his forehead ? By L44C, "each player must follow suit if possible." Failure to do so is an irregularity. By L42B2, you may try to prevent the irregularity, and I believe that you can try to prevent it by saying, "No hearts on forehead, partner?" :) As indicated in other messages, be careful with pointing. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 06:20:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 06:20:58 +1000 Received: from uno.minfod.com ([207.227.70.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00350 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 06:20:52 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zWRHe-001b6bC; Thu, 22 Oct 98 15:24 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:24:30 +0000 To: "Bridge Laws" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Cc: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" In-Reply-To: <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_15721786==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_15721786==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:43 PM 10/22/98 , Christian Bernscherer wrote: >Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: > >Board 4 W/all > > DBT8x > KTx > 9xx > DT > >AKxx xx >Bx ADxx >ADxx Kx >xxx Kxxxx > > 9x > 9xxx > BTxx > ABx > >West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He ducked, won the second spade and >ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. >South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and another diamond West claimed nine >tricks without further statement. > >Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played until then) they recognized that >declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw >the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1. > >Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think >normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking >the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for the game, and the score of +600 should stand. > >Could you please tell me your opinions. The finesse is certainly a "normal play" in this situation. So the aquiescence stands. On the other hand, if the defenders had contested the claim originally I would rule down 1. While the board is in play the non-claiming side gets the benefit of the doubt. (Law 70E) But when an aquiescence is withdrawn it is the claiming side that gets the benefit. John S. Nichols --=====================_15721786==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:43 PM 10/22/98 , Christian Bernscherer wrote:
>Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling:
>
>Board 4 W/all
>
>       DBT8x
>       KTx
>       9xx
>       DT
>
>AKxx           xx
>Bx             ADxx
>ADxx           Kx
>xxx            Kxxxx
>
>       9x
>       9xxx
>       BTxx
>       ABx
>
>West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He ducked, won the second spade and
>ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace.
>South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and another diamond West claimed nine
>tricks without further statement.
>
>Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played until then) they recognized that
>declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw
>the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1.
>
>Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think
>normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking
>the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for the game, and the score of +600 should stand.
>
>Could you please tell me your opinions.

The finesse is certainly a "normal play" in this situation.  So the aquiescence stands.

On the other hand, if the defenders had contested the claim originally I would rule down 1.  While the board is in play the non-claiming side gets the benefit of the doubt.  (Law 70E)

But when an aquiescence is withdrawn it is the claiming side that gets the benefit.
John S. Nichols
--=====================_15721786==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 07:33:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:33:17 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00606 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:33:03 +1000 Received: from p2as05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.43] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zWSPV-00073h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:36:46 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: heart nine Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:43:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdfe04$f073ff20$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 You may ask. You should not point.(not nice manners). However it is too late to prevent the revoke but not too late to prevent it being established. But why bother? Law 64B3 There is no penalty for failiure to play a "faced" card. . So maybe the table referred to is the cranial table! Anne -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 1:16 PM Subject: heart nine >Yesterday, something funny happened. >After the lead and the first trick, leader said "I know who has the nine >of hearts". Everybody laughed. >My partner, the declarer, thereupon stuck the heart nine to his >forehead. It stayed there. > >Now I was thinking. > >Suppose a few tricks later, my partner forgets this card (he doesn't see >it, after all) and tries to ruff a heart. >Am I, as dummy, not having lost my limited rights (I have done nothing >in L43A2), entitled to point to his forehead ? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 07:42:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:42:59 +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 HAA00649 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:42:53 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA20417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:46:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Oct 98 22:44 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations 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: > Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, and as > with any other form of the game, alerting should be beneficial as far as > possible for the players that play under that jurisdiction. In > OKBridge, for example, ACBL alerting would be a terrible idea, because > the jurisdiction is different: OKBridge is not NAmerican, but world- > wide. However, it would be ridiculous to have a competition where some players are playing to EBU rules on alerts/UI/having none etc and others are playing to ACBL regs. OKB should of course adopt their own set of regs whether as an SO in its own right or by recognising WBF/EBU/ACBL as the SO. I would guess that adopting ACBL regs would cause problems for the least number of players. Players organising a special competition could choose their SO for that purpose. Creeping AmericaniZation strikes again I suppose. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 08:02:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:02:26 +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 IAA00703 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:02:19 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-137.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.137]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA6847974 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <362FACB7.D1A55D30@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:07:51 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at> 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 SAA6847974 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The way L69A reads, the period where acquiescence can no longer be withdrawn for the purpose of contesting a claim/ concession under L70 ends when either of the following conditions are met: A] the side has called to a subsequent board or B] the end of the round has occurred This is the relevant part of the law which would adjudicate a bad claim where declarer could not achieve his ninth trick say via the heart finesse, which is to say, he gets 8 tricks, not nine. Clearly, a call has been made to a subsequent board so the claim can not be contested under L70. However, until the correction period is over [per 79C], acquiescence can be withdrawn [L69B] if it can be shown that all normal lines of play yield acquiesced trick[s]. In this case, a heart finesse [a normal play] is a way to get declarer the nine tricks claimed so the claim stands [ignoring other non relevant details]. It appears that the AC was ruling under L70 instead of L69? Consider this- Dummy wins the first trick and declarer ruffs the continuation and is over ruffed. With the exception of 2 cards at which I am looking, dummy is high. At this point, I [defender] claim my doubleton ace and king of trump by showing them and concede the remaining tricks for down one. No problem, the cards are returned to the board and it is scored up and we start the next hand. The next day I finally get the hand record and discover, you guessed it, partner revoked when they over ruffed. I immediately report to the director=85.. I know the law is clear but what ought to be done in this situation? Roger Pewick Christian Bernscherer wrote: >=20 > Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following= ruling: >=20 > Board 4 W/all >=20 > DBT8x > KTx > 9xx > DT >=20 > AKxx xx > Bx ADxx > ADxx Kx > xxx Kxxxx >=20 > 9x > 9xxx > BTxx > ABx >=20 > West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. H= e ducked, won the second spade and > ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. = The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. > South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to Sout= h and another diamond West claimed nine > tricks without further statement. >=20 > Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were= played until then) they recognized that > declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called t= he TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw > the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and= changed the score to 3NT -1. >=20 > Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69= B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think > normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a= claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking > the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his tri= ck for the game, and the score of +600 should stand. >=20 > Could you please tell me your opinions. >=20 > Best regards, > Christian >=20 > -- > Christian Bernscherer > Vienna, Austria > bernscherer@parsec.at From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 09:18:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:18:36 +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 JAA00921 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:18:30 +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 SAA21148; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981022191953.007a1740@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:19:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:44 PM 10/22/98 BST-1, Tim West-meads wrote: >However, it would be ridiculous to have a competition where some players >are playing to EBU rules on alerts/UI/having none etc and others are >playing to ACBL regs. Why? If four Brits are playing OKbridge, why shouldn't they use the alert rules they are familiar with? Who cares what's going on at other tables as far as alerts go? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 09:34:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:34:11 +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 JAA00950 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:34:05 +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 TAA23683 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA13552 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:38:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810222338.TAA13552@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > One of the best examples is the Law that does not > allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI > implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. > In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you > are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe > it should thus be allowed. How about a general provision allowing any SO to waive the memory aid prohibition by specifying which memory aids are permitted for a particular event? (There is at least one ACBL individual event where players are permitted to look at their own convention cards, whatever the Laws might say. Or at least that was true a few years ago; I am not certain it is true today but I suspect so.) Why should any SO be prohibited from doing what it wants on this matter? I suppose this is another matter for 2007. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 10:26:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:26:01 +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 KAA01089 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:25:54 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.183] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWV5O-0006UP-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:28:11 +0100 Message-ID: <003801bdfe1c$32cee080$b73463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > No, he did not. He played a card to the second trick. The problem is >that at that time there was no second trick, but saying it is a fifth >card played to the first trick when it wasn't does not seem to be the >answer. This strikes me as...well, it does not strike me as very sensible. You cannot play the second card to a trick that does not exist, since the first card has not yet been played to it. It is not a question of what is legal or illegal; to play a card (as opposed to leading a card) to the second trick when "at that time there was no second trick" is physically impossible. There was a first trick, and that trick was not over since East had not turned his contribution to it face down. Unless there is specific provision in the Laws to allow a card played while the first trick is in progress to be considered not a contribution to that trick, then it is such a contribution. > If we followed your interpretation then whenever anyone led without >waiting for the last trick to be turned down it would be treated as a >fifth card played to the previous trick. Fortunately, there is exactly such a legal provision as I have envisaged above. It is L45E, which states (in paraphrase) that a card which would otherwise [physically] be the fifth card played to the current trick may be deemed a lead to the next trick by the Director. >Maybe we should rule it that >way - but we don't, and I believe it would require a change of Law. We should rule it that way, and we do, and L45E allows us to do so. Of course, this Law means that if a defender leads before declarer or his partner has turned down their card (or dummy's card) to the previous trick, that lead is out of turn. I believe that this is entirely correct; if I want to consider the implications of the current trick, then I will leave my card face up on the table while I do so, and no opponent has the right to initiate the next trick without possible penalty until I have finished my deliberations. >If >you think of what you want when players are casual I think the current >arrangement is best. So we are distinguishing between fifth cards >played to a trick and cards played to the next trick. There is nothing that I want "when players are casual". I simply want the game to be played in accordance with the Laws. To return to my earlier theme, of course I want the Laws to provide a clear [type 1] definition of when the "current trick" is complete; they do not do so, hence this foolish [type 2] argument. If the Laws simply said: "when all four cards played to a trick have been turned face down, that trick is complete, and until that point any card played is considered a contribution to the current trick", there would be no problem, as there should not be. It is not as if players would have difficulty understanding or complying with such a Law. > >Grattan wrote: > >>+++ Well, if we go down this route the result is that Declarer's card >>is not a penalty card; defender's card is a penalty card. [Laws 45E1 and >>45E2.]. I have to agree that until quitted and no lead to the next trick >>the trick is still current. > > The Laws give us no concept of a trick being current. That is a pity. But it seems to me that since it is the case, we need to rely on our judgment as to the currency of a trick. If a trick is current only until the fourth card is played to it, then there would be no need for a Law relating to the fifth card played to a trick, since it would be physically impossible to play such a card [the case where the fourth player plays two cards simultaneously is already covered, and is not relevant to the matter under discussion]. But there is such a Law, which clearly indicates that some period was envisaged, after the play of the fourth card to a trick, during which that trick was still current. It appears at least reasonable that this period should be the interval between the play of the fourth card and the turning down of all cards, whereby all three players indicate that they are content that the current trick should be regarded as complete. No other interpretation appears to me to make any sense at all. >What they allow >for is the twin possibilities of a fifth card being played to one trick, >presumably until it is quitted, and the possibility of a card being >played to the next trick before the last trick is quitted. > That is so, and in my view that is unfortunate. There should be a definable point at which the current trick is over and the next trick begins. Such a point is not difficult to define in the context of the current Laws, and to make such a definition appears to me far more reasonable than to suggest that a player can follow to a trick that has not yet started. > ------------------------------------- > > I think, having read all the submissions carefully, that we have to >make a judgement as to which trick a card belongs. I agree with you. But it should be an objective, not a subjective, judgment. >Despite Steve's >dislike of deciding what goes on in a player's brain TD's are >continually making judgements based on all the factors available and >this is likely to be one of the easiest. Note that we are only deciding >what really happened by our judgement and not the player's intent. I don't follow this at all. At least one card from trick 1 was face up on the table. If we "judge" that South, whose turn to lead to trick 2 it was not and whose intention to lead to trick 2 it was not, has "led" a card to trick 2 and not to trick 1, then we are not making a judgment but perpetrating an absurdity. Your "judgment" is based on nothing but South's intent. > Having decided that the card from declarer is played [to be pedantic, >is or must be played] to the second trick it becomes the Lead to that >trick [see Definitions] even if not intended as such, Having decided that the moon is made of green cheese, it becomes Sage Derby cheese even if not intended as such... >and the next >player's card is played to that lead. Thus the next player's card is >subject to the normal revoke and penalty card rules if it is a revoke. >It also condones the lead [which was out of turn]. > > As I remember the original case, declarer "ruffed" RHO's card and LHO >"overruffed": thus there was no revoke and play continues from there. Well, well. So East, whose proper turn it was to lead to trick 2, has no chance to do so; declarer has led a card that he never intended to lead; West has played a card that he would never have played if South had actually led to trick 2, but by the grace of God it happened not to be a revoke; so we can all go out and dance round the Millennium. As I said at the beginning of this message, this strikes me as... From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 10:43:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:43:28 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01135 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:43:23 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA00131 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:47:06 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:47:06 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <362FACB7.D1A55D30@freewwweb.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, axeman wrote: >=20 > Consider this- >=20 > Dummy wins the first trick and declarer ruffs the continuation and is > over ruffed. With the exception of 2 cards at which I am looking, dummy > is high. At this point, I [defender] claim my doubleton ace and king of > trump by showing them and concede the remaining tricks for down one. No > problem, the cards are returned to the board and it is scored up and we > start the next hand. >=20 > The next day I finally get the hand record and discover, you guessed it, > partner revoked when they over ruffed. I immediately report to the > director=85.. >=20 > I know the law is clear but what ought to be done in this situation? You have already done all you can by reporting it to the director as soon as you became aware of the situation. As we both know,the situation is beyond the L79C correction period (unless your club has specified a longer time period than 30mins). According to L81C6 the situation is outside the directors power to give any adjustment now.=20 It may feel inequitable but there is no point having a "statute of limitations" if it is not adherred to. There has to be some point when the end really is the end for corrections. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 10:48:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:48:31 +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 KAA01160 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:48:26 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWVSb-0000P6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:52:11 +0000 Message-ID: <8RHeodBB78L2Ewen@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:33:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? In-Reply-To: <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl>, Jan Peter Pals writes >Dummy (North), > >s AJ52 >h - >d - >c 10943 > >has made the last trick. >Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". >East: "Director!" > >Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > L45C4b A player may without penalty change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought. ... ... no, wait ... *is* thought. "club" is played L45B Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, ... L46B2 If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. The C3 *is* the played card. >Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, >say 10987? > No except it would be the C7 :) > >Thanks in advance for comments. > >JP -- 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 Oct 23 10:48:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:48:39 +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 KAA01167 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:48:31 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWVSg-0004uL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:48:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at>, Christian Bernscherer writes >Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: > >Board 4 W/all > > DBT8x > KTx > 9xx > DT > >AKxx xx >Bx ADxx >ADxx Kx >xxx Kxxxx > > 9x > 9xxx > BTxx > ABx > >West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He >ducked, >won the second spade and >ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next >club went to the Q, K, and ace. >South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and >another diamond West claimed nine >tricks without further statement. > >Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played >until then) they recognized that >declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD >who >stated that it was too late to withdraw >the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed >the score to 3NT -1. > >Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the >AC came to a wrong decision. I think >normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, >but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking >the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for >the game, and the score of +600 should stand. > >Could you please tell me your opinions. > L69B gives you the extended period, but only awards tricks which don't fall into the category of "*any* normal play". In other words the emphasis has shifted from careless (ie we would adjust if called immediately) to "any normal play" and the finesse must fall into that category. I'd rule result stands, ie the hook is allowed. >Best regards, >Christian > >-- >Christian Bernscherer >Vienna, Austria >bernscherer@parsec.at > -- 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 Oct 23 11:13:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:13:38 +1000 Received: from stormy.ibl.bm ([199.172.192.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01277 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:13:32 +1000 Received: from [199.172.251.244] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:16:56 -0400 Date: 22 Oct 98 22:17:06 +0100 From: Jack Rhind Subject: Butler Scoring Question To: "bridge-laws" , David Stevenson X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.3b3 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="====51535048535151515756===1" Message-ID: <19981023021656.AAA8504@stormy.ibl.bm@[199.172.251.244]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --====51535048535151515756===1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Reply to: Butler Scoring Question We are going to use Butler scoring for an event that will have somewhere = between 5 and 12 pairs. I would be interested in other peoples views on = the virtues, or lack thereof of using a method where the highest and = lowest scores are dropped. The remaining scores being averaged to = determine the datum on which to award scores. Is this reasonable, or is there a better method that can/should be used. Jack Rhind Bermuda Bridge Federation *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** --====51535048535151515756===1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
         Reply to:   Butler Scoring Question
We are going to use Butler scoring = for an event that will have somewhere between = 5 and 12 pairs. I would be interested in = other peoples views on the virtues, or lack = thereof of using a method where the highest = and lowest scores are dropped. The remaining = scores being averaged to determine the datum = on which to award scores.

Is this reasonable, = or is there a better method that can/should = be used.

Jack Rhind
Bermuda Bridge = Federation

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

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

Voice: (441) = 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421
Jack A. = Rhind (441) 293-0282
*************************************************************** --====51535048535151515756===1-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 11:25:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:00 +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 LAA01306 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:24:51 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWW1p-0001cv-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:28:34 +0000 Message-ID: <+XbZqDAVZ8L2Ewe4@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:57:09 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Inadvertent 4th Seat Weak Two In-Reply-To: <199810161524.LAA08798@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199810161524.LAA08798@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> so East has a eight loser hand facing a fourth seat weak 2. >> Why on earth should he bid? > >Because a fourth seat two-bid is not so weak? If undiscussed, I'd >expect it to show about six losers. Is usage different at the YC? > i'd certainly expect say 10 or 11 points minimum - up to 14 with six carder - just that bit harder for them to compete than if i open 1S (and i'd expect this with a complete stranger say on okbridge) therefore for me pass is not alowed in this auction mike (trying to catch up ten days of blml in one evening) (i find random apostrophes a little annoying but far less so than random cats and dogs) henceforth known as the founder of the people's party for the liberation of blml from cats, dogs and their daft doting owners I remain your humble servant etc etc - waiting for flames -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 11:25:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:00 +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 LAA01307 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:24:52 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWW1q-0001cz-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:28:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:46:57 +0100 To: Nanki Poo Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: <4agDBGAdTcL2Ewfx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4agDBGAdTcL2Ewfx@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Quango writes Cats snipped!! Tell quango i know a vet willing to do the job mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 11:25:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:06 +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 LAA01310 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:24:55 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWW1q-0001cx-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:28:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:23:40 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: The Twitch Finesse In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Simon Edler wrote: >>My opinion on this is that it is an inappropriate action. I would make >>the same assumption that declarer is trying to work out percentages, >>but surely declarer should do this before leading from hand? > > Absolutely not. There is so much thinking necessary in this game so >why waste any? The queen might be singleton in West's hand and appear >when a small one is led towards dummy. Even the ten will change the >odds. > > To think before leading from hand is just bad play. > >>If I had to quote a law to back up my opinion, you could probably >>look at 74C7. With regard to Karen's solution, just be wary on how >>you do it! (see law 74C6). > > L74C7 does not apply since he is pausing to think about the hand. > >>Now I guess I should answer Peter's question on when to call the TD. >>Probably when the trick has been completed or after declarer has >>made the play from dummy (in other words, as close to the infraction >>as possible). > > I cannot see why you want to call the TD at all. I think your >assumption that declarer is waiting for a twitch is nearly always wrong. > i'm sure that when i'm planning a hand like this i think something like i'll draw trumps , knock out the ace of clubs and then lead a diamond towards dummy and see if something good happens - if nothing good does happen then as David says i have to see if logic and calculation can help before i make my usual awful guess - i can see nothing wrong with this - of course at this moment in time a declarer who glared or stared at his opponents would be acting improperly - but to sit and quietly think before playing seems fine mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 11:25:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:16 +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 LAA01324 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:05 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWW1q-0001cy-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:28:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:43:00 +0100 To: KOOYMAN Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: L25B, what else? In-Reply-To: <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS>, KOOYMAN writes boring bridge stuff snipped > >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no >time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may >be, to keep his house clean. > > ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) in my experience no one has ever brought a cat to a bridge tournament - but no doubt someone knows better - if so please tell rec.cats.at.bridge.tournaments ! >ton > mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 11:55:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:55:23 +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 LAA01436 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:55:15 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.111]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 3290900 ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:56:27 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981022220115.007d0600@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:01:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <199810222140.3151000@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DS wrote: > It is important that we develop Laws for OLB to allow for the very >real differences. One of the best examples is the Law that does not >allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI >implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. >In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you >are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe >it should thus be allowed. This is one of the more interesting of several areas in which internet bridge has diverged from f2f bridge; it is indeed the majority view that this is acceptable, within the context of the pick-up play in which most players engage. There are strong reasons for allowing CC consultation in pick-up. Nobody wants to sit around waiting while a pair nails down agreements on sequences that will probably not even arise, nor do many wish to play a game characterized by frequent misunderstandings in basic sequences covered on a standard CC which can readily be posted and then consulted as needed. However, there are also legitimate and imo compelling reasons for not allowing CC consultation to become the universal standard in internet bridge. During the development of internet bridge laws, the primary criterion I've applied in asking whether a deviation from f2f practice should be allowed is whether the change fundamentally alters the nature of the game, and in particular whether it has the potential to do so in an invasive or progressive manner. I'm willing to develop the underlying argument more fully, but I think it will be evident to most that it is in the best interests of both internet and f2f bridge if the two games retain relevance to one another, rather than diverging into fundamentally different games. More proximately, it seems desirable that players wishing to adhere to the principles of the f2f bridge laws should not be deprived, by the internet bridge laws, of the opportunity to compete on an even playing field on the internet. Does CC consultation have the capacity to fundamentally alter the game? At the level of pick-up partnerships, clearly not, but if one considers the long-term implications of allowing regular partnerships unfettered access to system notes, it is clear that there is substantial danger for fundamental alteration of the auction. For further discussion of CC consultation, aids to memory and a model for the evolution of bidding under these circumstances, I refer the reader to the discussion papers posted at www.cshore.com/bills/evolution.html. The solution to this conflict, in my view, is clear: this is an area in which the sponsoring organization should be permitted the discretion to allow or disallow consultation of the convention card, and I have proposed a modification of L40E2 to read "Unless otherwise specified by the sponsoring organization, during the auction and play, any player may refer to his opponents' convention card, but not to his own." [snip] > Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, and as >with any other form of the game, alerting should be beneficial as far as >possible for the players that play under that jurisdiction. In >OKBridge, for example, ACBL alerting would be a terrible idea, because >the jurisdiction is different: OKBridge is not NAmerican, but world- >wide. I am in full agreement. There is no reason why alert policies should not reflect the full breadth of the playing population, and with private self alerts and explanations many of the problems associated with f2f alert policies can be easily and effectively obviated. I'd still leave it the SO to decide what's alertable, but I would hope that most would eventually see the wisdom of a truly cosmopolitan alert policy. > Regulations are required for communication between partners. There >are ongoing arguments amongst OKBridge players as to whether partners >should be allowed to communicate by phone, ICQ or sitting next to each >other. Various stupid suggestions have been made! What we do not want >is some sort of witchhunt McCarthy type approach, but the first thing is >to decide what is allowed. This has been a fairly controversial area; I'll reserve my detailed comments and references on it for another post. > Whatever we do, it is very important that we are intending to promote >Bridge, not regulate it to death. A good mantra. :) Cheers, Bill S. aka Griffins From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 12:13:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:13:36 +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 MAA01471 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:13:29 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.111]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 3302100 ; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:14:50 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981022221940.007d1420@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:19:40 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <199810222140.3150200@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: [snip[ >If such a rule were to be made, a line would >have to be drawn. Should I allow GIB to >play the hand for me? Or my buddy? [snip] >There's a social reason not to allow even >system aids. Players who look up every bid >in a complex auction (I've played against >them) take a fair bit of time to play, >enough so to make the game less pleasant. Not a problem. With a computer-assisted hierarchical search of my system notes, I should be able to come up with my bid in a flash, and maybe even have it entered automatically. ;) Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 14:31:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:31:19 +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 OAA01816 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:31:07 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-7.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.173]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA12844 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36300861.33030F83@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:38:58 -0400 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? References: <199810220754.JAA02055@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: > Dummy (North), > > s AJ52 > h - > d - > c 10943 > > has made the last trick. > Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > East: "Director!" > > Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > > Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > say 10987? > > Thanks in advance for comments. > > JP Using Law 45C4b, if in this instance there was no obvious pause for thought and the statement was made all in the same breath, I would allow the play of the A of spades. Should it be decided that there was a pause for thought, I would have to know the style used to call for a card from the dummy. Some people say Club 4, for example, whereas I would say " 4 of clubs" Perhaps the player had not completed his call for a club. If he had it would be the lowest blub on the board. . -- Nancy T. Dressing From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 16:33:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:33:20 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01998 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:33:11 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA04531; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Christian Bernscherer" , "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:31:58 -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 Christian Bernshcerer wrote: > > Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: > > Board 4 W/all > > DBT8x > KTx > 9xx > DT > > AKxx xx > Bx ADxx > ADxx Kx > xxx Kxxxx > > 9x > 9xxx > BTxx > ABx > > West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He ducked, won the second spade and > ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. > South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and another diamond West claimed nine > tricks without further statement. > > Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played until then) they recognized that > declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw > the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1. > > Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think > normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking > the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for the game, and the score of +600 should stand. > > Could you please tell me your opinions. > What are those cards, dames and boys? John Probst writes: > L69B gives you the extended period, but only awards tricks which don't > fall into the category of "*any* normal play". In other words the > emphasis has shifted from careless (ie we would adjust if called > immediately) to "any normal play" and the finesse must fall into that > category. I'd rule result stands, ie the hook is allowed. Why would you adjust if called immediately? Not taking a game-going finesse would be irrational, so it's permitted by the new L70E. Roger Pewick writes: (snip of remarks similar to John's) > It appears that the AC was ruling under L70 instead of L69? And under 1987 Laws instead of 1997 Laws. My interpretation of L69B is that "normal play" refers to play by both sides, as Roger Prewig and John Probst assume in their replies, both correctly stating that "result stands." However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. Going by L70E, failing to do so would be somewhat irrational ("normal" doesn't apply here), since the finesse is needed for the ninth trick. That being so, the acquiescing side can hardly be given a trick that they could not have obtained from the TD at the time of the claim. If I may digress: The 1997 Laws changed L70E to add a final clause: "or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." Previously you could not take a finesse unless it was proven (or would inevitably become proven), even to repeat a previous finesse of an on-side card. The corollary is that a losing finesse must be taken unless not taking it would be irrational. Example: AJ1098 opposite K765. If a no-statement claim requires five tricks in the suit, claimer must lose to the queen unless it is singleton. Playing the wrong high card first, then losing a finesse to an original Qx, is a bit against the odds but is not irrational, while a first-round finesse would be. If Qxx is in one hand, no finesse allowed, and with Qxxx in one hand, it is assumed that the first high card played would be the wrong one. Maybe Steve Willner can tell us if L70E does indeed say all that. If it doesn't, we're in trouble. While looking at L70E's last sentence, note that it has a serious ambiguity associated with our English language. "On any normal line of play" can be read as any and all, or any one of several, depending on whether you emphasize "any" or "normal." The intent is obviously *any* normal line of play, but a BL could argue that one single successful normal line of play satisfies the criterion. For my example holding, the BL would say that Qxxx in one hand does not invalidate a no-statement claim, because laying down either high card first is a normal line of play. The French have it right, as usual, with no ambiguity: "sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale," with "n'importe quelle" meaning "no matter which." Those same words ("any normal line of play") lead to ambiguities in other Laws also, but that's another thread. I also see a problem with the word "irrational," because what is irrational for one player may not be so for another. I preferred the old 70E. Why should careless claimers be protected by a complicating amendment to the law? I know, it's good PR. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 17:12:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA02089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:12:02 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA02084 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:11:57 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA10276; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:11:25 -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 Michael Farebrother wrote: > > Vitold, one thing you (and this thread) should know about those > of us from ACBL-land; a large number of our tournaments (not the NABC's > (3 per year, in all of NA), but a lot of regionals (drawing, say, a > state or two) and almost all sectionals (drawing a county or > 5) ) have as their only event for the day a Stratified game. > > In this, the different levels of players are seeded into sections. > so that there are say 7 Flight A pairs, 4 Flight B pairs, and 4 > Flight C pairs, in each direction, in each section. The good part, > from the Flight C point of view, is that you can win Flight C by > getting the highest score of all flight C pairs only, Flight B by > getting the highest score of all Flight B and C pairs, Flight A by > winning the section (and similarly for the field, in multi-section > games). But you play each of the pairs opposite you during the game, > regardless of their skill. In a Tucson, Arizona, regional a few weeks ago, there were two C pairs in my section's E-W field. They tied with 42%, lowest score in the section. For this achievement, tying for first place in the C stratum, they each received 1.23 masterpoints. A cynic might say they tied for last place and deserved nothing. I used to wonder why the ACBL doesn't require across-the-field matchpointing. I think I know the answer now. Those two pairs might have won zero points if C players were ranked across-the-field. Is the pandering of masterpoints in this way really good for the game of duplicate bridge? > Wife Alice is a tennis player, and I asked her how the tennis organizations run their tournaments. She told me that the players are ranked, highest to lowest, as Open, A, B, and C, sometimes D if there are a lot of novices, based on previous achievments, and there is a separate competition for each level. Everyone plays by the same clear rulebook, provided free upon joining the USTA, and follows the rules. Your rating is based on recent previous performance, and you progress from C to B to A to Open as you get better. You can also move down, if you lose often enough. In a tournament you can't play down, of course, but you can play up if you want to, maybe getting embarrassed. You get no credit for winning a few points against the good players, however; you have to win matches (no stratified scoring!). Accordingly, players tend to play at their own level until they get moved up or down. Seems like a good system to me, and I don't hear any complaints about it from tennis players. I recommend it to the ACBL. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 17:18:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA02113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:18:07 +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 RAA02108 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:18:01 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-22.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.22]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA7216193 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36302EF8.178B1481@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 02:23:36 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? References: <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl> <36300861.33030F83@pinehurst.net> 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 DAA7216193 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems that: ClubNO, spade ace- is without pause and is probably inadvertent Club, NO, spade ace- is probably without pause and is probably inadvertent, but not necessarily Club..NO, spade ace- might be without pause and is probably inadvertent, but not necessarily Club=85=85=85.NO, spade ace- is with pause and is could be inadvertent, = but not necessarily Club=85=85=85.,NO, spade ace - is with pause and is could be inadvertent,= but not necessarily ClubbbbbbbbbNO, spade ace- may be without pause and is a change of mind, the 'bbbb' looks like thinking to me Every action at bridge imparts momentum which signals that the next player in turn is to take action. There is probably a sports analogy that is relevant. Such as in American football. A play is called for sweep left. The quarterback inadvertently starts to hand off for sweep right. He did not mean to but in his briefest of pauses, his momentum=20 causes him to take too much time to correct his direction, the halfback is too far away and the only players coming to help him are opponents.=20 Had he instantaneously- not probably instantaneously- corrected his error, he might have made his handoff successfully. When, on his own volition, a bridge player starts off on the wrong foot, the fairest way for him to stop and fix it [if such a correction is permitted and he should he choose to] is to hold his correction to the most stringent of standards. Anything less tilts the field of battle heavily in his favor. Roger Pewick Nancy's Desk wrote: >=20 > Jan Peter Pals wrote: >=20 > > Dummy (North), > > > > s AJ52 > > h - > > d - > > c 10943 > > > > has made the last trick. > > Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > > East: "Director!" > > > > Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > > > > Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > > say 10987? > > > > Thanks in advance for comments. > > > > JP >=20 > Using Law 45C4b, if in this instance there was no obvious pause for > thought and the statement was made all in the same breath, I would allo= w > the play of the A of spades. Should it be decided that there was a > pause for thought, I would have to know the style used to call for a > card from the dummy. Some people say Club 4, for example, whereas I > would say " 4 of clubs" Perhaps the player had not completed his call > for a club. If he had it would be the lowest blub on the board. . >=20 > -- > Nancy T. Dressing From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 18:01:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:01:54 +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 SAA02173 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:01:47 +1000 Received: from modem19.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.147] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWcDt-0007xU-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:05:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:42:46 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) > Date: 22 October 1998 13:13 > > Herman De Wael wrote: and David Stevenson wrote: > --------------------------------\x/--\x/-------------------------------------- - > An interesting but perverse conclusion. If player A attempts > unsolicited to tell player B something to his advantage it would not be > player B that gets the one-year ban. > ++++ One year only for an aggravated offence? Not only seeking to disrupt but suborning another player to do so too.......off with his head! - our commentator's, that is. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 18:09:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:09:40 +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 SAA02213 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:09:34 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06042 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:12:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:12:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: michael amos Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L25B, what else? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, michael amos wrote: > In message <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS>, KOOYMAN > writes > > boring bridge stuff snipped > > > >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no > >time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may > >be, to keep his house clean. > > > > > ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the > bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if > i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) The ACBL has one, I couldn't find the exact text but basically says that pets are not allowed in the playing area, except for guide dogs for visually impaired players. Lynn Deas frequently violates that rule. 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 Oct 23 18:19:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:19:06 +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 SAA02250 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:18:58 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-22.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.22]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA7097814 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36303D43.89D3B38E@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:24:35 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, however, if the finesse loses, then a potential 3 trick set ensues [HK, and 2 diamonds when they are 5-2 instead of 4-3. Declarer had an opportunity to make a statement material to the play of the hand and did not [if the heart finesse is to be taken, then it must be taken immediately after cashing the diamond]. To fail to do so presumes that declarer did not consider it important to do so [as in they presumed that they did not need the finesse for 9 tricks]. But with 3 potential tricks in the balance, failure to mention the finesse is too material to be ignored. There are examples where the winning line with an un mentioned finesse or trump is obvious and should be so adjudicated, but not this one. Marvin L. French wrote: > > Christian Bernshcerer wrote: > > > > > Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the > following ruling: > > > > Board 4 W/all > > > > DBT8x > > KTx > > 9xx > > DT > > > > AKxx xx > > Bx ADxx > > ADxx Kx > > xxx Kxxxx > > > > 9x > > 9xxx > > BTxx > > ABx -s- > Roger Pewick writes: > > (snip of remarks similar to John's) > > > It appears that the AC was ruling under L70 instead of L69? > > And under 1987 Laws instead of 1997 Laws. > > My interpretation of L69B is that "normal play" refers to play by > both sides, as Roger Prewig and John Probst assume in their > replies, both correctly stating that "result stands." > > However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If > the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right > to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. > Going by L70E, failing to do so would be somewhat irrational > ("normal" doesn't apply here), since the finesse is needed for the > ninth trick. That being so, the acquiescing side can hardly be > given a trick that they could not have obtained from the TD at the > time of the claim. > > If I may digress: The 1997 Laws changed L70E to add a final clause: > "or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." > Previously you could not take a finesse unless it was proven (or > would inevitably become proven), even to repeat a previous finesse > of an on-side card. The corollary is that a losing finesse must be > taken unless not taking it would be irrational. Example: AJ1098 > opposite K765. If a no-statement claim requires five tricks in the > suit, claimer must lose to the queen unless it is singleton. > Playing the wrong high card first, then losing a finesse to an > original Qx, is a bit against the odds but is not irrational, while > a first-round finesse would be. If Qxx is in one hand, no finesse > allowed, and with Qxxx in one hand, it is assumed that the first > high card played would be the wrong one. Maybe Steve Willner can > tell us if L70E does indeed say all that. If it doesn't, we're in > trouble. > > While looking at L70E's last sentence, note that it has a serious > ambiguity associated with our English language. "On any normal line > of play" can be read as any and all, or any one of several, > depending on whether you emphasize "any" or "normal." The intent is > obviously *any* normal line of play, but a BL could argue that one > single successful normal line of play satisfies the criterion. For > my example holding, the BL would say that Qxxx in one hand does not > invalidate a no-statement claim, because laying down either high > card first is a normal line of play. > > The French have it right, as usual, with no ambiguity: "sur > n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale," with "n'importe quelle" > meaning "no matter which." > > Those same words ("any normal line of play") lead to ambiguities in > other Laws also, but that's another thread. I also see a problem > with the word "irrational," because what is irrational for one > player may not be so for another. I preferred the old 70E. Why > should careless claimers be protected by a complicating amendment > to the law? I know, it's good PR. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 18:49:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:49:30 +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 SAA02327 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:49:19 +1000 Received: from modem88.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.88] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWcxv-0006LM-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:53:00 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:51:35 +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 Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? > Date: 23 October 1998 01:29 > > DWS wrote: > > > No, he did not. > > We should rule it that way, and we do, and L45E allows us to do so. Of > course, this Law means that if a defender leads before declarer or his > partner has turned down their card (or dummy's card) to the previous > trick, that lead is out of turn. I believe that this is entirely > correct; if I want to consider the implications of the current trick, > then I will leave my card face up on the table while I do so, and no > opponent has the right to initiate the next trick without possible > penalty until I have finished my deliberations. +++ I have not found the wording in the laws to make it an infraction. Law44G certainly does not forbid it. ++++ > > There is nothing that I want "when players are casual". I simply want > the game to be played in accordance with the Laws. To return to my > earlier theme, of course I want the Laws to provide a clear [type 1] > definition of when the "current trick" is complete; they do not do so, > hence this foolish [type 2] argument. If the Laws simply said: "when > all four cards played to a trick have been turned face down, that > trick is complete, and until that point any card played is considered > a contribution to the current trick", there would be no problem, as > there should not be. It is not as if players would have difficulty > understanding or complying with such a Law. ++++ Here I go along with DB. Another point to strengthen in the laws. Dump it on the memory board - my, will I have a large enough bin to put it all in? ++++ > ----------------\x/------------------ . It appears at least reasonable that this > period should be the interval between the play of the fourth card and > the turning down of all cards, whereby all three players indicate that > they are content that the current trick should be regarded as > complete. No other interpretation appears to me to make any sense at > all. > ++++ The trick is complete when it is so as a factual matter, not when it is so in the opinion of players. Their observation of the trick to ensure it is complete does not alter the fact of whether it is so or not.- whatever 'complete' means. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 18:50:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:50:56 +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 SAA02341 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:50:50 +1000 Received: from modem88.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.88] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zWcxu-0006LM-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:52:58 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:26:50 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? > Date: 22 October 1998 14:58 > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >Are we really in the unhappy position > > > ------------------------------------- > > Grattan wrote: > > >+++ Well, if we go down this route the result is that Declarer's card > >is not a penalty card; defender's card is a penalty card. [Laws 45E1 and > >45E2.]. I have to agree that until quitted and no lead to the next trick > >the trick is still current. > David (?) then remarked: > The Laws give us no concept of a trick being current. ++++ I do not think this is a reasonable statement. Since Law 45C1 uses the term there must be a concept as to what is the current trick. This we are (currently) left to infer from the operation of other laws. My view is that a trick is current so long as any player who has not yet contributed a card to it is seeking to do so, and when the trick is whole it remains current until one of two things occurs - either the trick is turned down or a player leads to the subsequent trick. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 19:12:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:12:19 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA02409 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:12:15 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA00255 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:16:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:16:02 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > John Probst writes: > > > L69B gives you the extended period, but only awards tricks which > don't > > fall into the category of "*any* normal play". In other words the > > emphasis has shifted from careless (ie we would adjust if called > > immediately) to "any normal play" and the finesse must fall into > that > > category. I'd rule result stands, ie the hook is allowed. So would I. In withdrawing the acqueisence, the filter of normality has shifted in favour of the original claimer. > Why would you adjust if called immediately? Not taking a game-going > finesse would be irrational, so it's permitted by the new L70E. > > Roger Pewick writes: > > (snip of remarks similar to John's) > > > It appears that the AC was ruling under L70 instead of L69? > > And under 1987 Laws instead of 1997 Laws. > > My interpretation of L69B is that "normal play" refers to play by > both sides, as Roger Prewig and John Probst assume in their > replies, both correctly stating that "result stands." > > However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If > the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right > to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. > Going by L70E, failing to do so would be somewhat irrational > ("normal" doesn't apply here), since the finesse is needed for the > ninth trick. That being so, the acquiescing side can hardly be > given a trick that they could not have obtained from the TD at the > time of the claim. I'm not sure that spurning the heart finesse is irrational. At the time of the original claim, declarer seems to have thought that he had nine tricks without the finesse (the defenders initially thought so too)! The appeals committee may have not have fully understood the Law, but presumably they did question declarer and also appear to have decided that the non-finesse (in the context of this situation) was not "irrational" Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 21:26:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:26:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02647 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:26:37 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWfQ2-0004Rj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:30:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:51:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: L25B, what else? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, michael amos wrote: >> ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the >> bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if >> i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) >The ACBL has one, I couldn't find the exact text but basically says that >pets are not allowed in the playing area, except for guide dogs for >visually impaired players. Lynn Deas frequently violates that rule. Apart from guide dogs, which my mother taught me were actually useful, dogs should be banned from everywhere! Cats can play bridge, of course, but they don't bother. -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 21:26:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:26:38 +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 VAA02641 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:26:27 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWfQ2-0004Rh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:32:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: <003801bdfe1c$32cee080$b73463c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: >> No, he did not. He played a card to the second trick. The problem >is >>that at that time there was no second trick, but saying it is a fifth >>card played to the first trick when it wasn't does not seem to be the >>answer. >This strikes me as...well, it does not strike me as very sensible. You >cannot play the second card to a trick that does not exist, since the >first card has not yet been played to it. If you play a card to the second trick, and there is no previous card played to it, then it is the first card played to that trick. That is what first card means. > It is not a question of what >is legal or illegal; to play a card (as opposed to leading a card) to >the second trick when "at that time there was no second trick" is >physically impossible. A lead is "The first card played to a trick". You cannot play the first card to a trick and not be leading - that is true, but surely irrelevant. > There was a first trick, and that trick was not >over since East had not turned his contribution to it face down. >Unless there is specific provision in the Laws to allow a card played >while the first trick is in progress to be considered not a >contribution to that trick, then it is such a contribution. That is the whole point. There could easily be a Law that indicates that any card played while trick one is not quitted is played to trick one. However, there isn't. L45E1 gives a particular circumstance where the TD has to decide whether a card is played to the last trick or the next trick, and that makes clear that the Laws envisage cards played to a trick before the last trick is quitted. >> If we followed your interpretation then whenever anyone led without >>waiting for the last trick to be turned down it would be treated as a >>fifth card played to the previous trick. >Fortunately, there is exactly such a legal provision as I have >envisaged above. It is L45E, which states (in paraphrase) that a card >which would otherwise [physically] be the fifth card played to the >current trick may be deemed a lead to the next trick by the Director. Good. So in the present case we have to decide whether the card played by declarer is [a] played as a fifth card to trick one or [b] led to trick two. Now, I think you are assuming intent to lead as a basis for leading, but that it not what the Laws define a Lead as: they define it as the first card played to a trick. Thus what we are being asked is simply the question: was declarer's card [a] played as a fifth card to trick one or [b] played to trick two [s] >I don't follow this at all. At least one card from trick 1 was face up >on the table. If we "judge" that South, whose turn to lead to trick 2 >it was not and whose intention to lead to trick 2 it was not, has >"led" a card to trick 2 and not to trick 1, then we are not making a >judgment but perpetrating an absurdity. Your "judgment" is based on >nothing but South's intent. Not at all. I judge on the facts presented. Suppose South says "I thought I was playing to trick two" it does not matter what his intent was but it is evidence towards what he actually did. [s] >Well, well. So East, whose proper turn it was to lead to trick 2, has >no chance to do so; declarer has led a card that he never intended to >lead; West has played a card that he would never have played if South >had actually led to trick 2, but by the grace of God it happened not >to be a revoke; so we can all go out and dance round the Millennium. >As I said at the beginning of this message, this strikes me as... I do not know what you want us to do. Both sides have done something silly: this is not the time to have too much sympathy. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Grattan wrote: >David (?) then remarked: >> The Laws give us no concept of a trick being current. >++++ I do not think this is a reasonable statement. Since Law 45C1 uses the >term >there must be a concept as to what is the current trick. This we are >(currently) left >to infer from the operation of other laws. > My view is that a trick is current so long as any player who has >not >yet contributed a card to it is seeking to do so, and when the trick is whole >it >remains current until one of two things occurs - either the trick is turned >down >or a player leads to the subsequent trick. Sorry: you are right. Unfortunately it does not help. We are faced with the same decision. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 22:05:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:18 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02823 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:09 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-61.uunet.be [194.7.13.61]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22217 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:08:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36306961.64F36317@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:32:49 +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: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> > Thus it becomes interesting > >> > to tell them all your previous results. > > >> > ######### And illegal! ######## > > >(and to be pedantic : it is not illegal to tell something, it is illegal > >to listen to it !) > > An interesting but perverse conclusion. If player A attempts > unsolicited to tell player B something to his advantage it would not be > player B that gets the one-year ban. > > As far as the legalities are concerned perhaps you could justify this > comment please. > If player A attempts to up his score by willingly tell something to player B, then I would hope player B informs the TD, and indeed a one-year ban (or, considering Belgian banning traditions, one day) would be in order for player A. If player A absentmindedly forgets that opponents may yet have to play the board in question, and he continues to discuss the hand with partner, and B listens and uses it to his advantage, then I would ban B, not A. That is what I mean when I say it is not illegal to tell, only to listen. OK ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 22:05:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:24 +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 WAA02828 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:13 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-61.uunet.be [194.7.13.61]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22232 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:08:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36306A14.AEEC4A94@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:35:48 +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: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) References: <199810221719.KAA11676@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > It's true within the context of normal UI. > In the context of actions that may be disciplined, > of course, it's not. > > Hmmm...I've noticed recently that a moderately > successful local player is quite careless with > his private score in pair games. More than once > I have asked him to cover them. He shrugs and > acts as if I shouldn't care. Of course, it's to > his advantage that his F2F opponents get to see > his scores. I *know* all his opponents > who have even adequate vision (that leaves > me out) can see all his scores. I have never once > heard anyone in one of these events call the > director for having accidentally obtained UI. > I think, by the way, that should someone do it > from his score, that the director should give > him a PP of the difference between the Ave+s > assigned and 50%, as he caused an adjusted score > to be needed at another table. If *I* were the > director, I'd tack on a bit more as I know he > does this all the time. Exactly the reason why I put this problem in the first place. In a Mitchell movement, the careless player (let's not call him a cheat at once) is only helping "friends". Thus he benefits from his carelessness. (Or if all opponents are completely honest, he doesn't suffer). If he were to be helping "friends" and "enemies" alike, he would not gain from his carelessness and you would have one more argument to convince him not to do this. > --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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 22:05:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:30 +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 WAA02831 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:16 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-61.uunet.be [194.7.13.61]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22254 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:08:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36306DD5.32222F4C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:51:49 +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: Re: Butler Scoring Question References: <19981023021656.AAA8504@stormy.ibl.bm@[199.172.251.244]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello again Jack, Could I first ask you to check your settings on your mailing program. It comes out as html, and with very very very small letters. Jack Rhind wrote: > > Reply to: Butler Scoring Question > > We are going to use Butler scoring for an event that will have > somewhere between 5 and 12 pairs. I would be interested in other > peoples views on the virtues, or lack thereof of using a method where > the highest and lowest scores are dropped. The remaining scores being > averaged to determine the datum on which to award scores. > > Is this reasonable, or is there a better method that can/should be > used. > > Jack Rhind > Bermuda Bridge Federation > Quite an old discussion really, and Steve will jump right in to defend the Cross-IMP position, in which no scores are dropped. The only thing I can say is that it is done because it was done. People from this side of the pond expect it to be done and question you if you should decide not to do it. People on the other side seem not to expect it and question your reasons for doing it. Since you are in the middle, you can still educate. I believe the advantages and disadvantages are clear. Decide for yourself. I know you know there is a large bit of discussion on the proper way to Butler (Bastille) and/or Cross-IMP on my pages. As to deciding which one to go for, I cannot really help you. Both are valuable methods. However, I would not Butler without dropping extremes. Then Cross-IMP is better. Nor would I try to modify cross-Imping into dropping extremes. Clear ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 22:05:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:31 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02834 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:19 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-61.uunet.be [194.7.13.61]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22271 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:09:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36306F8B.E3AF6C41@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:59:07 +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: Re: Card played from dummy? References: <8RHeodBB78L2Ewen@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <199810220754.JAA02055@hera.frw.uva.nl>, Jan Peter Pals > writes > >Dummy (North), > > > >s AJ52 > >h - > >d - > >c 10943 > > > >has made the last trick. > >Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > >East: "Director!" > > > >Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > > > L45C4b A player may without penalty change an inadvertent designation if > he does so without pause for thought. ... > > ... no, wait ... *is* thought. "club" is played > indeed. > L45B Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, ... > > L46B2 If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have > called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > The C3 *is* the played card. > I would not be so harsh. "club ....." is an unfinished indication. it must be finished before the card is played. "no, spade" is not allowed, but does not finish the indication. I would hold declarer to club, but would still allow him to choose which one. > >Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > >say 10987? > > > No except it would be the C7 :) > > > >Thanks in advance for comments. > > > >JP > > -- > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 22:05:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:53 +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 WAA02881 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:05:43 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-61.uunet.be [194.7.13.61]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22332 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <36307FC7.BA5C473@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:08:23 +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: Re: Card played from dummy? References: <199810221526.LAA28399@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > > > > Dummy (North), > > > > s AJ52 > > h - > > d - > > c 10943 > > > > has made the last trick. > > Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". > > East: "Director!" > > > > Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > > Please define "........"--is that a pause or a continuation of the > word "club," indicating that the designation is not complete? > If it's a pause for thought, L45C4b applies, and a LOW club is > played. If it's something like "cluuuuuuuuuuuuub--no, wait--play the > SA" (where -- indicates no pause) then the SA is allowed. > I don't think there is any difference. Club .... and cluuuuuuuuubbbbbbb are both unfinished indications. Declarer should either finish the indication by stating a card, or by indicating it does not matter, in which case L46 applies. The finished indication club spade ace is not allowed, IMO. But how do we deal with it ? I don't know. > > Does it make any difference if dummy's clubs are of the same rank, > > say 10987? > > No. L46B2 states that if "club" is the designation, it is to be > interpreted as "lowest club." > Only in that there is now no reason to claim that club .... is not a finished indication. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 23:28:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:28:50 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03198 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:28:42 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA02385 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA14179 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:32:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810231332.JAA14179@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David S. wrote: > I think, having read all the submissions carefully, that we have to >make a judgement as to which trick a card belongs. I am afraid that this is so under the current laws. I don't see how L45E can be read any other way. My opinion of this need not be restated, but we are stuck with the present situation until 2007. > Despite Steve's >dislike of deciding what goes on in a player's brain TD's are >continually making judgements based on all the factors available and >this is likely to be one of the easiest. If this thread shows anything, it is that "easy" is not the right word. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 23 23:39:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:39:26 +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 XAA03265 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:39:19 +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 JAA02697 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA14213 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:43:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810231343.JAA14213@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > L45C4b A player may without penalty change an inadvertent designation if > he does so without pause for thought. ... > > ... no, wait ... *is* thought. "club" is played No doubt it is thought. The other question is whether '...' indicates a pause at the table or is just punctuation in the message. If there really was _a pause_ for thought, then the rest follows. If there was no pause, then the question of thought does not arise. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 00:01:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:01:51 +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 AAA03356 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:01:44 +1000 Received: from [195.99.51.23] [195.99.51.23] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWhnf-00061I-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:02:45 +0100 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:05:44 +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 Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a club", to = which trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to = which trick was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 00:06:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:06:16 +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 AAA03389 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:06:11 +1000 Received: from default (user-38lcirs.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.124]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12881 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981023100839.006c018c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:08:39 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:31 PM 10/22/98 -0700, Marv wrote: >However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If >the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right >to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. >Going by L70E, failing to do so would be somewhat irrational >("normal" doesn't apply here), since the finesse is needed for the >ninth trick. That being so, the acquiescing side can hardly be >given a trick that they could not have obtained from the TD at the >time of the claim. I don't know if you are just trying to make a point here about the inadvisability of the modification to L70E, but I am confident you will stand alone in your judgement that this was a valid claim in the first place. It is quite obvious from the facts presented that declarer saw no need to take the finesse, wrongly counting nine tricks without it. That is not an irrational view, merely a careless one. He cannot be allowed to take the finesse after it is pointed out to him that his claim is one trick shy, and no "rational" reading of the law supports a contrary view. FWIW, I'll add my vote to the apparently unanimous judgement that the AC was wrong in allowing the withdrawal of the acquienscence. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 00:28:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:28:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05718 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:28:48 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA02593 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA14284 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:32:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810231432.KAA14284@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: heart nine X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John A Kuchenbrod > By L44C, "each player must follow suit if possible." Failure to do so > is an irregularity. By L42B2, you may try to prevent the irregularity, Please, folks, RTFLB! Dummy's inquiring about a possible revoke (L42B1) is an entirely separate matter from trying to prevent declarer's irregularity (L42B2). L42B1 does not say anything about cards on forehead, and so the inquiry is legal as long as dummy has not forfeited his rights. A more interesting question is whether a revoke should be penalized when the revoker has a visible card with which he could have followed suit. L64B3 says "any card faced on the table," but the lawmakers seem to have overlooked cards faced by being attached to someone's forehead. In spite of my penchant for literal reading of the laws, I would not penalize a revoke if the revoker had a card of the correct suit in any position clearly visible to the other side. (Grattan: Perhaps the LC might consider deleting "on the table" in the next revision. Or is there something I'm missing? I suspect the intent was to penalize a revoke if a legal card is face up but hidden on the floor or otherwise not readily visible to the opponents. But what about face up, on the table, but hidden under a convention card or coffee cup? I think we would want to penalize a revoke then, since there was no way the opponents could have seen it happening.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 02:36:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:36:51 +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 CAA06341 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:36:44 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-100.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.100]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA7394730 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:41:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3630B1ED.C058C6A2@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:42:21 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies that he was done with the trick. If the next card he plays was meant to be to the previous trick, he has to say so BEFORE he plays it so that there is no doubt. But in that event, the proper thing to do is to call the TD immediately. Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must be to a future trick. When south is the player that plays the first card to a new trick, that would make the card a lead- whether the card was intended as a lead or not. This is distinguished from a card carelessly dropping from the hand which is appropriately treated as an exposed card [a penalty card if by a defender]. If the next card he plays was meant to be to the previous trick, he has to say so BEFORE he in order to establish that fact. But in that event, the proper thing to do is to call the TD immediately to verify and rule. If south had not turned his card to the previous trick, then clearly he has not finished with the previous trick. His played card would be ruled an exposed card [and returned to his hand because he is declarer]. I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a club", to which trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to which trick was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 02:59:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:59:18 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06424 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 02:59:12 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10444 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:12:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The LLOT? Revoke? thread doesn't yet seem to have reached a consensus, but I believe a substantial number of commentators decided that South could withdraw without penalty the card played in error (treating it as a fifth card played to the trick), but that West's card would be a major penalty card, and some of those who made this decision were distressed by it. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is the correct ruling, would this then be an appropriate situation in which to apply Law 81.C.8, which allows the director "to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side"? I have once or twice applied this Law, but only when the NOS were clearly uncomfortable with the penalty assessed, felt they were partly to blame for the irregularity, and spontaneously said something like "I don't think that's fair". Is the director permitted to mention the possibility of a waiver of penalty on his/her own initiative? To recommend it? _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 03:22:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 03:22:00 +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 DAA06477 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 03:21:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA08839 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA14539 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:25:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810231725.NAA14539@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Don Kersey > Assuming for the sake of argument that this is the correct ruling, would > this then be an appropriate situation in which to apply Law 81.C.8, which > allows the director "to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon > the request of the non-offending side"? I don't see why a TD shouldn't suggest L81C8 in cases where he thinks it might give the fairest outcome. The "NOS" might be more inclined to accept the TD's suggestion if the possibilities of L72B1 are explained. :-) On a serious note, it does seem to me that if a L72B1 situation arises, it is worthwhile offering the chance to achieve a play result instead if there's a way to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 04:08:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:08:59 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06611 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:08:42 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-25.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.191]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA03074 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3630C7E3.69A0C9C7@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:16:03 -0400 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L25B, what else? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, michael amos wrote: > > > In message <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS>, KOOYMAN > > writes > > > > boring bridge stuff snipped > > > > > >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no > > >time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may > > >be, to keep his house clean. > > > > > > > > ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the > > bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if > > i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) > > The ACBL has one, I couldn't find the exact text but basically says that > pets are not allowed in the playing area, except for guide dogs for > visually impaired players. Lynn Deas frequently violates that rule. > > 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. Lynn Doesn't take her dogs into the playing room anymore. She has been told she can not. That is why the rule came down re working dogs only. There was a player who used the playing area to train her dogs-in-training to handle all the noise and confusion. The dogs all passed with flying colors, sleeping nearly under her chair. Some players didn't do so well so now we have zero tolerance. Quite nice to see, really. We do have some blind players (legally and otherwise!) -- Nancy T. Dressing From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 04:15:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:15:49 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06653 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:15:43 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id OAA10959; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:18:54 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA27025; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:18:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810231818.OAA27025@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:18:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The general consensus on this problem seems to be on this hand that, pursuant to L69, the claim acquiescence cannot be withdrawn because it is past the time specified in L69A, and the tricks which were conceded did not fit the description "...could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" (in my laws there is a footnote defining "normal" as careless or inferior but not irrational - are the footnotes part of the laws, or are they to be classed with the headers as merely explanatory?). Although this is not the question asked, I glean from some comments made that if the claim had not been conceded, declarer would not be allowe to take the heart finesse, and would be ruled down one. Anyone disagree? And now, my question: how would the ruling on this hand have changed if the heart finesse would have failed? (1) If the claim were accepted and the objection occurred at halftime, then should the director rule that "ducking the queen was careless but not irrational"? (2) In the acquiesced claim instance, given declarer has the J, if the H finesse were to be taken before cashing diamonds (assume declarer claims before touching the diamond suit) then he must still make the contract, since S has no spades. How should the director rule? (3) How would your answer to (1) and (2) change if the claim were challenged immediately? --David Metcalf Christian Bernscherer wrote: >>Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: >> >>Board 4 W/all >> >> DBT8x >> KTx >> 9xx >> DT >> >>AKxx xx >>Bx ADxx >>ADxx Kx >>xxx Kxxxx >> >> 9x >> 9xxx >> BTxx >> ABx >> >>West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as lead. He ducked, won the second spade and >>ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. >>South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club to South and another diamond West claimed nine >>tricks without further statement. >> >>Opponents agreed, but at half time of the match (another 12 boards were played until then) they recognized that >>declarer has only eight tricks without the heart finesse. They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw >>the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1. >> >>Today my teammates asked me for my opinion. I told them - as I read L69B - the AC came to a wrong decision. I think >>normal play in that Law not only refers to the pair which agrees with a claim, but also to the claiming side. So IMO taking >>the finesse is a line of normal play, by which the claimer gets his trick for the game, and the score of +600 should stand. >> >>Could you please tell me your opinions. >> >>Best regards, >>Christian >> >>-- >>Christian Bernscherer >>Vienna, Austria >>bernscherer@parsec.at >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 04:18:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:18:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06660 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:17:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWlpb-0005ok-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:21:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:13:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199810230636.XAA04531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Christian Bernshcerer wrote: > >> >> Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the >following ruling: >> >> Board 4 W/all >> >> DBT8x >> KTx >> 9xx >> DT >> >> AKxx xx >> Bx ADxx >> ADxx Kx >> xxx Kxxxx >> >> 9x >> 9xxx >> BTxx >> ABx >> >> West (my teammate) declared 3 NT and got the queen of spades as >lead. He ducked, won the second spade and >> ducked a club. North continued with another spade, which declarer >won. The next club went to the Q, K, and ace. >> South switched to a diamond, won in dummy. After leading a club >to South and another diamond West claimed nine >> tricks without further statement. >> snip >My interpretation of L69B is that "normal play" refers to play by >both sides, as Roger Prewig and John Probst assume in their >replies, both correctly stating that "result stands." > >However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If >the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right >to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. >Going by L70E, failing to do so would be somewhat irrational >("normal" doesn't apply here), since the finesse is needed for the >ninth trick. That being so, the acquiescing side can hardly be >given a trick that they could not have obtained from the TD at the >time of the claim. > Here I disagree: I think that L70E applies and declarer was careless. He thought he had 9 *without* the heart finesse. "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card ...". Had the claim been contested the result is Down 1. -- 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 Oct 24 04:46:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:46:45 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06686 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:46:39 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id OAA16040; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:49:50 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA27661; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199810231849.OAA27661@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>At 10:44 PM 10/22/98 BST-1, Tim West-meads wrote: >>>>However, it would be ridiculous to have a competition where some players >>>>are playing to EBU rules on alerts/UI/having none etc and others are >>>>playing to ACBL regs. Tim Goodwin wrote: >>Why? If four Brits are playing OKbridge, why shouldn't they use the alert >>rules they are familiar with? Who cares what's going on at other tables as >>far as alerts go? >>Tim If four Brits are playing in their hotel room in the U.S., they can do as they like. If they are playing in an ACBL tournament, and happen to meet, they must abide by ACBL regs and use ACBL alert regs. If they meet on OKbridge at a table in the normal course of things, they again can do as they like. If OKBridge decides to adopt for their tournaments the ACBL alert regulations, and our Brits meet during an OKBridge tournament, then they must abide by the conditions of contest and use ACBL alerts. If four Frenchmen were playing in Lille and met, since the conditions of contest required all explanations be in English, they were required to explain in English (I believe the C.o.C. claimed that no appeal based on misinformation given in any language other than English would be heard). --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 06:24:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:24:40 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06731 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:24:31 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA11040; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:27:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010966; Fri Oct 23 15:26:53 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFEA1.75D49DE0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:23:25 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFEA1.75D49DE0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Tim Goodwin'" Subject: RE: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:23:22 -0400 Encoding: 53 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a previous thread on rgb I debated this topic with ddj. My opinion is that this makes it a game other than bridge. It is as much a sea change as contract was from auction. It is not a bad game per se...it just is not bridge. No memory burden irreparably changes the game's very nature. That is why awarding of ACBL masterpoints for online play is such a poor idea. It is mixing apples and oranges. I realise that since it may be effectively impossible to police the use of memory aids online, perhaps legalising them is the only way that the honest, ethical player may have an equal chance at this new game. From my point of view, that and the cheating problem is why online bridge is a fine vehicle for recreational play and practice, but a poor one for serious competition. I wish this did not have to be so. Craig ---------- From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@maine.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 12:40 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations At 03:33 PM 10/22/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > It is important that we develop Laws for OLB to allow for the very >real differences. One of the best examples is the Law that does not >allow you to consult a memory aid: in F2FB it would have UI >implications, and there seems a general feeling that it is undesirable. >In OLB there are no UI implications since partner cannot see what you >are doing. Most people think it an acceptable practice, and I believe >it should thus be allowed. How about a detailed set of system notes? I have about 40 pages worth of system notes with my regular partner. Should I be permitted to refer to those notes? What if I take all the excess verbosity out of the notes and reduce it simply to sequences and principles (my partner often suggests that the notes could be condensed to one page)? Would this qualify as a convention card? Convention card files (text version) for OKbridge can actually contain more information than a standard ACBL CC, and can take more than one page to print out. Would there be a limit on how much information would be allowed for reference? I have on my desk a copy of "The Dictionary of Suit Combinations." From time to time I will look up a suit combination after playing a hand to see if I took the right line. Should I be able to refer to the book before I play the hand? This would generate no UI for partner. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 06:47:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:47:08 +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 GAA06849 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:46:58 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA07492; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:50:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007464; Fri Oct 23 15:50:04 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFEA4.B10F3F20@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:46:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFEA4.B10F3F20@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Mailing List , "'Nancy's Desk'" Subject: RE: L25B, what else? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:40:54 -0400 Encoding: 79 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Lea Dupont used to bring an exquisite poodle to sectionals. The well-trained animal stayed under the table, occasionally sniffing at Benito's shoes. I think the ban that the unit passed has more to do with the delay of game caused by everyone stopping to look at and admire such a fine animal. (Such delays would multiply of course if cats were allowed in the room.) Craig ---------- From: Nancy's Desk[SMTP:nancy@pinehurst.net] Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:16 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L25B, what else? Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, michael amos wrote: > > > In message <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS>, KOOYMAN > > writes > > > > boring bridge stuff snipped > > > > > >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no > > >time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may > > >be, to keep his house clean. > > > > > > > > ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the > > bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if > > i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) > > The ACBL has one, I couldn't find the exact text but basically says that > pets are not allowed in the playing area, except for guide dogs for > visually impaired players. Lynn Deas frequently violates that rule. > > 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. Lynn Doesn't take her dogs into the playing room anymore. She has been told she can not. That is why the rule came down re working dogs only. There was a player who used the playing area to train her dogs-in-training to handle all the noise and confusion. The dogs all passed with flying colors, sleeping nearly under her chair. Some players didn't do so well so now we have zero tolerance. Quite nice to see, really. We do have some blind players (legally and otherwise!) -- Nancy T. Dressing From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 06:47:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:47:20 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06855 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 06:47:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA16051 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:50:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016023; Fri Oct 23 15:49:52 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDFEA4.A722A880@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:46:16 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDFEA4.A722A880@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: L25B, what else? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:36:25 -0400 Encoding: 37 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quite politically incorrect and felinocentric...for shame Q. If Americans can manage to tolerate the British (or vice verse), cats must learn to do the same for dogs. Any other view would seem to indicate you are little more than an animal...an impossibility since we know you are a cat. Perhaps David should ration the catnip before you post. :-) Shaney & Streak for the 10 ---------- From: Quango[SMTP:quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 6:51 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25B, what else? Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, michael amos wrote: >> ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the >> bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if >> i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) >The ACBL has one, I couldn't find the exact text but basically says that >pets are not allowed in the playing area, except for guide dogs for >visually impaired players. Lynn Deas frequently violates that rule. Apart from guide dogs, which my mother taught me were actually useful, dogs should be banned from everywhere! Cats can play bridge, of course, but they don't bother. -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 07:01:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:01:29 +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 HAA06929 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:01:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07428; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810232104.OAA07428@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:00:46 -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 Michael Dennis wrote: > > I don't know if you are just trying to make a point here about the > inadvisability of the modification to L70E, but I am confident you will > stand alone in your judgement that this was a valid claim in the first > place. It is quite obvious from the facts presented that declarer saw no > need to take the finesse, wrongly counting nine tricks without it. That > is not an irrational view, merely a careless one. He cannot be allowed > to take the finesse after it is pointed out to him that his claim > is one trick shy, and no "rational" reading of the law supports a > contrary view. > I guess I'm ready for the looney bin, in that case. L70D/E do not (as they should) say anything about the original intent of the claimer. In this case, once the claim has been disputed, it would be irrational for a player of almost any class not to finesse for the ninth trick. Sure, declarer probably miscounted his tricks, and the objection to the claim woke him up to that fact. Obviously he should not be allowed to change his assumed original intent (cash out), but unfortunately someone forgot to put that prohibition in L70D/E. I think this would merely involve changing "would be" to "would have been" in both laws, but I'm not sure. The old 70E was better, no successful finesse allowed, period. Note that L70C was written with more care ("was probably unaware"). Now, what about a repeat finesse? Declarer, in a slam after opening 1NT, needing all the tricks from dummy's suit, finesses once with xx opposite AQJxxxx, wins the trick, and returns to hand in another suit. He then leads the second x, and when LHO follows low, he claims. Do you permit the repeat finesse? Prior to the new 70E, the answer was easy: no finesse if the king is onside, finesse if RHO was holding up with an original Kx. I bet most TDs would now allow a second successful finesse as the only rational play, not considering that people do hold up with Kx sometimes. Playing for the drop on the second round is actually the better play, all else being equal, against a defender who would hold up. Ergo, in this situation the new language should have no effect on the old ruling. Neither unsuccessful play, finessing or not finessing, is irrational, so declarer goes down in the slam. Do I have it right, or must the TD take into account the skill level of both declarer and declarer's RHO because of that new clause? Now take another situation: xx opposite AKQ10x. Declarer assumes the suit will run and claims all the tricks on that basis, without saying how he will play the suit. The outstanding cards are actually 4-2, but the jack is doubleton offside. Finessing for the jack is inferior, but not irrational for some players. Must the finesse be taken? Look at the parenthetical portion of the L70E heading: (finesse or drop). It implies that playing for the drop is not to be assumed if an unsuccessful finesse would be rational. Does that apply here? Do we have to decide what is rational for that particular player? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 07:13:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:13:24 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06975 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:13:18 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09787; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810232115.OAA09787@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Metcalf" , "bridge laws mailing list" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:12:28 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: (snip of very interesting comments, but I want to address just this one: > (in my laws there is a > footnote defining "normal" as careless or inferior but not irrational > - are the footnotes part of the laws, or are they to be classed with > the headers as merely explanatory?). > I once said to Edgar Kaplan that the footnote to L75D2 was just a footnote, a comment on the Laws, not part of the Laws. He violently (for him) disagreed, stressing that every footnote is an integral part of the Laws. Needless to say, I changed my mind. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 07:18:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:18:59 +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 HAA07023 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:18:52 +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 QAA12916 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981023172009.0079d6f0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:20:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations In-Reply-To: <199810231849.OAA27661@csb.bu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:49 PM 10/23/98 -0400, David Metcalf wrote: >If four Brits are playing in their hotel room in the U.S., they can >do as they like. > >If they are playing in an ACBL tournament, and happen to meet, they >must abide by ACBL regs and use ACBL alert regs. > >If they meet on OKbridge at a table in the normal course of things, >they again can do as they like. > >If OKBridge decides to adopt for their tournaments the ACBL alert >regulations, and our Brits meet during an OKBridge tournament, then >they must abide by the conditions of contest and use ACBL alerts. This is the kind of over regulation that (IMO) should be avoided. I believe that many people dislike this kind of over regulation and have chosen OKbridge over ACBL bridge in large part because it offers a less regulated environment. >If four Frenchmen were playing in Lille and met, since the conditions >of contest required all explanations be in English, they were required >to explain in English (I believe the C.o.C. claimed that no appeal >based on misinformation given in any language other than English >would be heard). Does that sound absurd to anyone else? Why should explanations be in English if all four players at the table speak French as their first language? Have you ever played bridge in Quebec City? Yes, English is the official language of all ACBL events. No, everyone does not speak English. Not speaking English should not prevent players from entering ACBL events. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:06:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:06:27 +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 IAA07139 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:06:21 +1000 Received: from [195.99.53.84] [195.99.53.84] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWpO0-00032B-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:08:47 +0100 From: David Burn To: Subject: Re:Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:10:23 +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 Don Kersey wrote: The LOOT? Revoke? thread doesn't yet seem to have reached a consensus, but = I believe a substantial number of commentators decided that South could = withdraw without penalty the card played in error (treating it as a fifth = card played to the trick), but that West's card would be a major penalty = card, and some of those who made this decision were distressed by it. = Assuming for the sake of argument that this is the correct ruling, would = this then be an appropriate situation in which to apply Law 81.C.8, which = allows the director "to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon = the request of the non-offending side"? Not a bad idea, but no need in this case. The TD has the power to decree = that West's card, though exposed, is not a penalty card (I don't have the = FLB with me, but it's a Law in the low fifties). This seems all that is = required here, though an equitable adjustment might be needed if West's = card gave a lot of information to East, or if South had perpetrated an = involuntary Alcatraz coup From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:06:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:06:36 +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 IAA07147 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:06:30 +1000 Received: from [195.99.53.84] [195.99.53.84] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zWpO9-00032B-00; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:08:56 +0100 From: David Burn To: Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:10:32 +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 axeman wrote: South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies that = he was done with the trick. =20 [DALB] Yes, but it does not signify that the trick is done. For example, East may = legitimately ask South to turn his card face up again. If the next card he plays was meant to be to the previous trick, he has to = say so BEFORE he plays it so that there is no doubt. But in that event, = the proper thing to do is to call the TD immediately. [DALB] This is an interesting notion, which has a lot of merit. But the trouble = with it is that it does not address the "genuine" aberrant case in which a = fifth card is played to the current trick. West leads, all follow, West = turns hs card down but the others leave theirs up, so West forgets that he = actually led to the trick and follows to it again. In such a case, it does = not seem to me that West should be deemed to have led to the next trick = (though I would have no quarrel with such a rule in principle it does not = appear correct in practice). [axeman] Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must be = to a future trick. =20 [DALB] This could be an alternative rule to the one I suggested (all plays are to = the current trick until all four cards have been turned face down). I would = not have a problem with it in principle, but there are some practical = difficulties. For example, South discards on the current trick, turns his = card down, then (because another card is still up) realises he could have = followed. Many players will automatically play the card they should have = played before taking up the card they actually did play. Now, it seems = obvious that such a play should not be considered a play to a future trick. [axeman] I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards = to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication = [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an = extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant = [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. [DALB] I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned = down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he = would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while = other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same = trick twice. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:15:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:15:28 +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 IAA07183 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:15:21 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-30.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.30]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA7712695 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36310147.596ADC2F@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:20:55 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) References: <199810231725.NAA14539@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The law does not say that the TD is to inform the player that he can request L81 so I am not even sure it is inappropriate for the TD to tell a 'non offender' that he can request the TD under L81C8 to wave a penalty for cause. [The WBF opinion is that the laws set the proper procedure, that which is outside is not appropriate.] Of course, if a player asks about it the TD has the responsibility to explain. Actually, I do not have a grasp of what 'for cause' is, so maybe this situation would not even apply. However, by his own volition and under certain circumstances, the director can rule under L50 that an exposed card is not a penalty card. Supposedly, such card is returned to the hand, but UI restrictions would still apply. For the sequence of events in the discussion, I feel that a correct ruling would result in this issue [ruling no penalty card via L50] not even coming up. Roger Pewick Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Don Kersey > > Assuming for the sake of argument that this is the correct ruling, would > > this then be an appropriate situation in which to apply Law 81.C.8, which > > allows the director "to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon > > the request of the non-offending side"? > > I don't see why a TD shouldn't suggest L81C8 in cases where he thinks > it might give the fairest outcome. > > The "NOS" might be more inclined to accept the TD's suggestion if the > possibilities of L72B1 are explained. :-) On a serious note, it does > seem to me that if a L72B1 situation arises, it is worthwhile offering > the chance to achieve a play result instead if there's a way to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:30:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:30:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07232 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:30:50 +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 SAA19794 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA14841 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:34:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810232234.SAA14841@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25B, what else? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: KOOYMAN > Discussing this subject we established the fact that the possibity of > changing a call was ment for a player who made a 'stupid' call and not > for cases [where there is another irregularity]. ... We did not > decide that the TD has to establish the fact that the player made a > stupid call, in order to allow him to change his call. It is up to the > player to decide for himself that his call was stupid. The TD never > makes such a decision during play and furthermore there would be an > undeserved advantage for the player who doesn't wait for the TD and > changes his call at once, in which case 25B applies. So 'stupid' is > not part of the laws, nor of the interpretation. It simply was used in > the discussion leading to our conclusion. So, let us forget it. These are all good points, and I was quite happy to see this note. It will be a shame if the interpretation of the law conflicts with its plain text. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, the minutes that have been circulated do not reflect the above. Has someone forged the messages that appear to come from Grattan? :-) >From the above, it sounds as though what the LC _meant_ to write was something like "The right to change a call under L25B terminates if there is an irregularity that could have influenced the change of call." I suppose this intent could be implemented under the current guidelines (based on the Lille minutes) if TD's are instructed always to let the player's own determination of "stupid" settle matters. TD: "Do you now think your first call was stupid? If not, you may not change it. If so, you may change it with the following consequences (reads L25B provisions). So was it stupid or not?" Player: "Yes, it was stupid." TD: "Very well, what call would you like to make instead?" Still, insisting that players admit their action to have been stupid seems unlikely to win favor. The average game contains a great many stupid actions, but few players care to admit it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:43:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:43:07 +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 IAA07342 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:43:01 +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 SAA19720 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA14862 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:47:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810232247.SAA14862@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: axeman (Roger Pewick) [And David Burn likewise] > However, by his own volition and under certain circumstances, the > director can rule under L50 that an exposed card is not a penalty card. L50 says "...unless the Director designates otherwise." But L49 doesn't seem to offer any options. There are specific circumstances where the card does not become a penalty card, but otherwise it does. I read L50 as saying the TD is to rule whether any of the L49 circumstances applies or not; not as giving the TD discretion. [Roger on his own here] > The law does not say that the TD is to inform the player that he can > request L81.... L10C1 is quite sufficient to allow the TD to advise the players if he thinks L81C8 is the most equitable resolution of the problem. Of course the players are free to disagree, in which case the TD rules as best he can under other laws. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 08:48:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:48:04 +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 IAA07370 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:47:55 +1000 Received: from default (pool03-194-7-13-74.uunet.be [194.7.13.74]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA24967 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:51:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199810232251.AAA24967@carbon.uunet.be> From: "Jan Boets" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:53:03 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk IMHO both the TD and the AC were wrong. Law 69B states "... within the correction period of law 79C ...", so it was not too late to withdraw aquiescence. The only reason why the score should stand is that the opponent aquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not, in the TD's judgment, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. As for me, "Any normal play" now means: if there are even ten "normal ways to play", nine not succesful and only one that results in the number of tricks as claimed, a TD may not withdraw aquiescence. Since finessing the HK is obviously a normal play to make nine tricks and the contract, ... ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 09:39:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:39:13 +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 JAA07465 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:39:08 +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 TAA18809 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA14965 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If > the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right > to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. I think the reasoning is correct, but I'm not sure about the outcome. The question is whether miscounting winners would be "careless" or "irrational." If declarer thought he already had nine winners, he might refuse the needed finesse. Also, what about cashing winners in the wrong order and ending up in dummy so the finesse could not be taken? Irrational or careless? There is no doubt that the new last clause of L70E complicates what used to be were simple rulings. "Case law," as I understand it, has been that mistakes like the above are careless (thus the claimer loses), but the change in the law may call for new guidelines. > Example: AJ1098 > opposite K765. If a no-statement claim requires five tricks in the > suit, claimer must lose to the queen unless it is singleton. FWIW I agree with this unless there are special circumstances in a particular hand that make losing plays irrational. For example, a full count on the hand might already have been obtained. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 09:46:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:46:37 +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 JAA07528 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:46:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWqxz-0002MK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:50:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:16:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a club", to which >trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to which trick >was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. When South "ruffed a club" was he playing his first card or his second card? His second card. Was he following to LHO's opening lead? No. From this, to which trick was he actually playing when he played his second card? Trick two. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 09:46:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:46:43 +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 JAA07534 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:46:36 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWqxz-0002ML-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:50:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:22:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler Scoring Question In-Reply-To: <36306DD5.32222F4C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Hello again Jack, > >Could I first ask you to check your settings on your mailing program. >It comes out as html, and with very very very small letters. > >Jack Rhind wrote: >> >> Reply to: Butler Scoring Question >> >> We are going to use Butler scoring for an event that will have >> somewhere between 5 and 12 pairs. I would be interested in other >> peoples views on the virtues, or lack thereof of using a method where >> the highest and lowest scores are dropped. The remaining scores being >> averaged to determine the datum on which to award scores. >> >> Is this reasonable, or is there a better method that can/should be >> used. >> >> Jack Rhind >> Bermuda Bridge Federation >> > >Quite an old discussion really, and Steve will jump right in to defend >the Cross-IMP position, in which no scores are dropped. > >The only thing I can say is that it is done because it was done. > >People from this side of the pond expect it to be done and question you >if you should decide not to do it. > >People on the other side seem not to expect it and question your >reasons for doing it. > >Since you are in the middle, you can still educate. > >I believe the advantages and disadvantages are clear. Decide for >yourself. > >I know you know there is a large bit of discussion on the proper way to >Butler (Bastille) and/or Cross-IMP on my pages. > >As to deciding which one to go for, I cannot really help you. Both are >valuable methods. > >However, I would not Butler without dropping extremes. Then Cross-IMP >is better. Nor would I try to modify cross-Imping into dropping >extremes. Clear ? Actually, there was a suggestion of weighting for very small numbers of scores. Jack says between five and twelve *pairs*, though I did wonder if he meant tables. Someone suggested that with five tables you weight the scores 1 2 2 2 1 to calculate the datum. This might be better than dropping the end scores [in effect weighting 0 1 1 1 0]. Certainly with three tables it cannot be right to drop the end scores. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 09:53:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:53:35 +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 JAA07578 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:53:30 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zWr4z-0006rz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:57:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:12:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Butler scoring (long and definitely not for David Burn) In-Reply-To: <36306961.64F36317@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >If player A attempts to up his score by willingly tell something to >player B, then I would hope player B informs the TD, and indeed a >one-year ban (or, considering Belgian banning traditions, one day) would >be in order for player A. > >If player A absentmindedly forgets that opponents may yet have to play >the board in question, and he continues to discuss the hand with >partner, and B listens and uses it to his advantage, then I would ban B, >not A. > >That is what I mean when I say it is not illegal to tell, only to >listen. Aha! I am so used to Europeans speaking better English than I do that I assume your English is perfect, Herman. The second scenario is not "telling" anyone anything IMO. Telling is a positive action, which is why I consider it illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 10:03:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:03:17 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07617 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:03:11 +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 UAA20570 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA15006 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810240007.UAA15006@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > In a Tucson, Arizona, regional a few weeks ago, there were two C > pairs in my section's E-W field. They tied with 42%, lowest score > in the section. For this achievement, tying for first place in the > C stratum, they each received 1.23 masterpoints. A cynic might say > they tied for last place and deserved nothing. > > I used to wonder why the ACBL doesn't require across-the-field > matchpointing. I think I know the answer now. Those two pairs might > have won zero points if C players were ranked across-the-field. [So much for trying to cut down on my BLML postings, especially to this thread...] Marv, are you confusing "across the field matchpointing" with "across the field ranking?" Or am I misunderstanding what happened? Did you mean that 42% was the highest score of all strat C pairs in the event, thus these two won the event in strat C? Or was 42% only the highest strat C score in section? In either case, matchpointing across the field or across sections wouldn't have changed anything fundamental. For event and section awards, strat C pairs are competing only with each other. One of them must win the event (or more than one may tie), If the highest strat C score is 10% -- or 0.5 matchpoint with all the others scoring zero! -- that pair wins strat C. You will be relieved to know, however, that second place out of two does not pay any master points. :-) But the winner gets the full award, whatever it is. Matchpointing across the field or across sections might have changed the scores a little bit and broken the tie. Or a different pair altogether might have won if you mean 42% was the best C score in the whole field. But somebody would have won strat C with a score not much different. In fact, 42% sounds only a little low to win strat C in a regional event. (I would expect more like 45%, and some days a Flight C pair plays well into the fifties.) Is 42% to win really rare, though? The purpose of matchpointing across sections is to reduce randomness, nothing else. For that purpose, matchpointing across two sections (>20 tables or so), is almost as good as matchpointing across an infinite field. David Grabiner has demonstrated this to my satisfaction, at least. I don't know whether anyone realized this earlier. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 10:45:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:45:53 +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 KAA07709 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:45:47 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-126.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.126]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA7767678 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36312489.C981C931@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:51:21 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) References: <199810232247.SAA14862@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: axeman (Roger Pewick) > [And David Burn likewise] > > However, by his own volition and under certain circumstances, the > > director can rule under L50 that an exposed card is not a penalty card. > > L50 says "...unless the Director designates otherwise." But L49 > doesn't seem to offer any options. There are specific circumstances > where the card does not become a penalty card, but otherwise it does. > I read L50 as saying the TD is to rule whether any of the L49 > circumstances applies or not; not as giving the TD discretion. L49 directs to go to L50 do it not? > [Roger on his own here] > > The law does not say that the TD is to inform the player that he can > > request L81.... I suppose it is correct to presume that to waive a penalty [s] it must be a complete penalty, not a piece of one? > > L10C1 is quite sufficient to allow the TD to advise the players if he > thinks L81C8 is the most equitable resolution of the problem. Of > course the players are free to disagree, in which case the TD rules as > best he can under other laws. ***Assuming for this discussion that the case is a generic one*** I think I must find out what L81C8 means before I can apply L10C1. If indeed L81 is a relevant option, the TD must supply it. I believe that if it is not relevant, it is not to be supplied as part of the ruling. However, it seems to me that in all the years I have played, no TD has ever mentioned L81 under any circumstances in my presence- whether at the table or away. With all the exposed cards over the years, it seems that if it could be relevant to those situations it would have come up at least once. I realize I may have lead a sheltered life [I have managed to rule on multiple illegal doubles out of turn], but I have never even heard of a TD ruling [under L50] that an exposed card was not a penalty card. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 11:25:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:25:04 +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 LAA07810 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:24:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA19090; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810240128.SAA19090@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Adam Wildavsky" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal 1 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:24:01 -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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > 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. Ah, but there are those who think the Laws are deficient in this regard, and support the assessment of procedural penalties (PPs) to make up for that deficiency. Want an example? Take San Francisco, 1996, Fall NABC. Appeals Committee: Phil Leon, chairman, plus Booby Goldman and Claire Tomay. The AC ruled no damage from the failure to disclose fully, result stands, then slapped a 1/4 board PP for inadequate disclosure. Another: Chicago summer NABC 1998 case #15, AC: George Dawkins, chair, Nell Cahn, Abby Heitner, Riggs Thayer and Michael White. There was a failure to disclose that a Stayman bidder who followed with 3D might not hold a major suit (he did, beside the point?). Against 3NT, the opening leader led partner's suit (spades) when a heart lead would have defeated the contract. The AC decided no damage, the table result would stand, and assessed N/S a 1/8 th board penalty for failing to properly disclose their agreements. Or take Chicago case #16, AC Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey Brody, Barry Rigal, Steve Weinstein. Results stands, no damage. The AC decided that it was a serious infraction for N/S to have given an incomplete explanation of their signalling methods, at an important stage of the play, even though they had done so inadvertently. The AC assessed a 3 IMP PP against the offending N/S pair. > We have such a law for revokes, but no such law for MI, so > automatic penalties for MI are not part of the game. > In a sense, yes. Established revokes are automatically penalized, true, whether damage or no damage. If a revoke is not established, then no penalty and no PP for the failure to follow correct procedure. However, some regard automatic penalties for MI as part of the game, as evidenced in the examples I just gave. Not good. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 11:44:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:44:10 +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 LAA07866 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:44:03 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-126.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.126]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA7713722 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36313233.F08B7649@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:49:39 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [DALB] I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same trick twice. David Burn wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies that he was done with the trick. > > [DALB] > > Yes, but it does not signify that the trick is done. For example, East may legitimately ask South to turn his card face up again. That is East's right. South no longer has the right. > If the next card he plays was meant to be to the previous trick, he has to say so BEFORE he plays it so that there is no doubt. But in that event, the proper thing to do is to call the TD immediately. > > [DALB] > > This is an interesting notion, which has a lot of merit. But the trouble with it is that it does not address the "genuine" aberrant case in which a fifth card is played to the current trick. West leads, all follow, West turns hs card down but the others leave theirs up, so West forgets that he actually led to the trick and follows to it again. In such a case, it does not seem to me that West should be deemed to have led to the next trick (though I would have no quarrel with such a rule in principle it does not appear correct in practice). > > [axeman] > > Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must be to a future trick. > > [DALB] > > This could be an alternative rule to the one I suggested (all plays are to the current trick until all four cards have been turned face down). I would not have a problem with it in principle, but there are some practical difficulties. For example, South discards on the current trick, turns his card down, then (because another card is still up) realises he could have followed. Many players will automatically play the card they should have played before taking up the card they actually did play. Now, it seems obvious that such a play should not be considered a play to a future trick. What, he did not call the director. If he had the problem is easily handled. What, he did not state that he was fixing the old trick. If he had the problem is easily handled with the help of the director. The card is to the new trick unless there is convincing evidence outside of mind reading that he was fixing an old trick. > [axeman] > > I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. > > [DALB] > > I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same trick twice. That is part of the point. If his card is face up there is evidence that he is at that trick in the play. If he adds another exposed card there are now two exposed cards. If he adds still another exposed card there are now three exposed cards. The first is the card played to the trick and the others are infractions that are handled as an exposed cards subsequent of his played card and the TD so rules. And if that extra card[s] was indeed intended as a lead/ play to the next trick, it will get played to the next trick if it is a legal play, won't it [actually, I can think of exceptions]. Further, when there is more than one exposed card and the contestant turns one over, this signifies that he has finished with the trick. Supposedly, the remaining card is the subsequent card and would be handled as an exposed card. And if LHO then POOT that would be an exposed card now. But, you do make the point [could it be a red herring?] above in the case where the player has already turned their card, decided that they need to correct an irregularity, fail to call the director, expose their card before saying anything. When a player is going to correct an irregularity without the director, I fail to see that it is unusual that a player in your words '. Indeed, if a player has not turned down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he would play another one.' I have had hundreds of experiences where a player who has revoked has exposed a card [to correct the revoke] before he has turned his first card down. I would not characterise such behaviour as unusual or most unlikely. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 14:41:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:41:23 +1000 Received: from node21.frontiernet.net (root@node21.frontiernet.net [209.130.129.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA08083 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:41:18 +1000 Received: from bickford (as5300-7-90.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [209.130.186.93]) by node21.frontiernet.net (8.8.8a/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA132930 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:38:23 -0400 Message-ID: <03d001bdff08$522ddac0$5dba82d1@bickford> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: Re: When to call TD after hesitation? Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:39:41 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My understanding is that the director should be called when the huddle occurs and before the partner has taken any action. I believe the rationale is that the partner should be officially aware of his/her obligations before taking any action. While I believe this is the rule (at least in the ACBL), I have reservations since this greatly increases the number of director calls; I would love to have this area revisited. As far as your second question, I don't recall seeing it voiced before, and I believe it is a very good question. I will copy the Bridge Laws Mailing List and perhaps they will be able to address this issue. I look forward to seeing their reply. Cheers................................./Bill Bickford Nikos Sarantakos wrote in message <3630aaf7.6654640@news.uunet.lu>... >Last time the TD was called to my table three times in >27 boards, twice for misinformation and once because >LHO had 14 cards and partner only 12. > >I fleetingly thought of calling TD a fourth time, for bidding on after >a hesitation, but it turned out that the lady had her bid -to say >the least. > >This was the deal > > > x > J x x x > A Q x x x x > x x > >A Q J x x x K x x x >-- K x x >x x x x >A K x x x x Q J x > > x x > A Q x x x > K J x x > x x > >NV against V, I open 1H as South after 2 passes. > >It goes: > >pass pass 1H dbl >4H pass(*) pass 4S >all pass > >(*) after long huddle > >They made 12 tricks for a shared bottom, since >most other EW pairs were in slam. I had >my reserves after the huddle (but did not express >them verbally). For one thing, they were newcomers. >But obviously, she had her bid. I just said in the >post-mortem that even in a serious tournament such >huddle would not bar her from bidding on with such >a mountain. > >[She did not have a Michaels or similar available >on the 1st round] > >My questions are: > >a. Generally > In such situations, when is it the appropriate time to >voice one's reserves? >After huddler's partner bids (i.e. after the call you contest), or >When the lead is made, or >When the play of the hand is over? > >b. In that particular case. >Assuming that the 4S bid is Ok despite the long huddle, >and assuming huddlers are experienced players, >does the fact of bidding on constitute a form of UI >to the huddler? i.e. it may be argued that huddler > now knows that partner >has a very strong hand since he dared to bid on despite >the huddle. Is that reverse UI? >In any case, is huddler barred from further action over >partner's 4S here? > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 19:10:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:10:23 +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 TAA08629 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:10:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-134.uunet.be [194.7.13.134]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16336 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:14:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3631A052.E992215@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:39:30 +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: Re: Butler Scoring Question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Actually, there was a suggestion of weighting for very small numbers > of scores. Jack says between five and twelve *pairs*, though I did > wonder if he meant tables. > > Someone suggested that with five tables you weight the scores > 1 2 2 2 1 to calculate the datum. This might be better than dropping > the end scores [in effect weighting 0 1 1 1 0]. Certainly with three > tables it cannot be right to drop the end scores. > In just this example, David ends up with the method now used in Bastille : 10% at either end is dropped, which is for 5 tables a weighing of : 0.5 1 1 1 0.5. (which equals 1 2 2 2 1) Of course that is only true for 5 tables. For seven the weighing is : 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 0.3 For ten tables the method is equal to previous practice. For 16 tables is gets : 0 0.4 1 ... 1 0.4 0 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 22:52:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:52:55 +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 WAA09146 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:52:49 +1000 Received: from [195.99.47.173] [195.99.47.173] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zX3CC-00070Y-00; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:53:32 +0100 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:56:43 +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 Steve wrote: L50 says "...unless the Director designates otherwise." But L49 doesn't seem to offer any options. There are specific circumstances where the card does not become a penalty card, but otherwise it does. I read L50 as saying the TD is to rule whether any of the L49 circumstances = applies or not; not as giving the TD discretion. [DALB] Interesting. I had thought that the purpose of L50 was to give the TD = discretion to say: "In normal circumstances, that would be a penalty card, = but given the special circumstances in which you have exposed it, I will = not so designate it." The case in point, where West exposes a card because = he is following to South's card payed in error, appears to me an obvious = example of where such discretion may be needed and could sensibly be = applied. If the Laws had not meant to give discretion to the TD in L50 to override = the general provision of L49, then it seems to me that there would be no = need at all for the exception clause in L50 (or indeed for the first = sentence of L50 at all). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 24 22:52:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:52:39 +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 WAA09139 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:52:31 +1000 Received: from [195.99.47.173] [195.99.47.173] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zX3Br-00070Y-00; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:53:10 +0100 From: David Burn To: Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:56:31 +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 [axeman] > South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies = that he was done with the trick. >=20 > [DALB] >=20 > Yes, but it does not signify that the trick is done. For example, East = may legitimately ask South to turn his card face up again. [axeman] That is East's right. South no longer has the right. [DALB] True, but so what? The point is that a trick is not over until all four = players have turned down their cards. While I could imagine it possible to = construct a regulation under which the trick is over for different people = at different times, I could see no earthly benefit in so doing. [axeman] > Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must = be to a future trick. [DALB] This simply does not follow. Or at least, it follows only from axeman's = premise that a trick is over for different players at different times - but = I do not believe that premise to be (a) justified in Law or (b) sensible in = practice. While trick one is in progress, cards played are played to trick = one. There is an exception made in the case of players who wilfully lead to = trick two while other players are still dealing with trick one. Such = conduct is boorish at best, gamesmanship or cheating at worst, and in my = view should not be sanctioned by the Laws. [axeman] The card is to the new trick unless there is convincing evidence outside of = mind reading that he was fixing an old trick. [DALB] You state this as if it were a fact, but it is not - it is no more than a = conclusion from a premise that appears both legally and practically = unsound. Why should it not be the case that the card is to the current = trick unless the current trick is over for the whole table, not just the = player concerned? I do not think that the current Laws provide enough = clarity to decide the question formally, but at least I am able to support = my argument by references to the FLB, something that axeman (and DWS) have = singularly failed to do. > [axeman] >=20 > I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards = to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication = [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an = extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant = [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. >=20 > [DALB] >=20 > I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned = down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he = would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while = other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same = trick twice. [axeman] That is part of the point. If his card is face up there is evidence that he is at that trick in the play. If he adds another exposed card there are now two exposed cards. If he adds still another exposed card there are now three exposed cards.=20 [DALB] And if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, the first such = card is a lead to the next trick, while the second is a lead to the next = trick but one! [axeman] The first is the card played to the trick and the others are infractions that are handled as an exposed cards subsequent of his played card and the TD so rules. And if that extra card[s] was indeed intended as a lead/ play to the next trick, it will get played to the next trick if it is a legal play, won't it [actually, I can think of exceptions]. [DALB] That is not the point at all. A player who plays a card while his own card = to the current trick is still face up may be either: mistakenly playing = another card to the current trick; or leading prematurely to the next = trick. If the former, then he is just as confused as he would be if his own = card were face down after the process I have described; if the latter, he = is doing no more than engaging in the deplorable practice of "fast-carding" = which the Laws (absurdly) sanction for declarer but not for the defenders. = Whether a player's card to the current trick is face up or face down = provides no evidence at all of the trick to which he believes he is playing = the card he next exposes. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 01:36:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:36:28 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11791 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:36:18 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-158.access.net.il [192.116.198.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAA16814; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:39:49 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3631F4BA.9D0AC2F3@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:39:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Weinstein CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) members Here is the first release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST Linda Weinstein - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , Nutmeg (10) Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 04:10:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:10:38 +1100 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 EAA12210 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:10:31 +1100 Received: from ip49.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.49]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981024171415.MHNC2535.fep4@ip49.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:14:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:14:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:11:25 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >In a Tucson, Arizona, regional a few weeks ago, there were two C >pairs in my section's E-W field. They tied with 42%, lowest score >in the section. For this achievement, tying for first place in the >C stratum, they each received 1.23 masterpoints. A cynic might say >they tied for last place and deserved nothing.=20 And I might say that surely they deserve some kind of compensation for having to play against all those much stronger pairs :-) Stratified games sound very strange to me: Is it any fun for a C player to play against all those A & B players? Is it any fun for an A player to play against all those B & C players? Is it reasonable to judge A players on how good they are at getting tops from inferior players rather than at how well they play against other A players? Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, but I cannot understand why players would want to play competitive bridge in this way. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 04:11:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:11:03 +1100 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 EAA12218 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:10:57 +1100 Received: from ip49.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.49]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981024171442.MHNN2535.fep4@ip49.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:14:42 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:14:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <363a0763.9682242@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, 22 Oct 1998 04:35:35 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >>+++++ 64A2 is not the best dressed law in the world; its drafter=20 >>thought the reference back of the later 'subsequent(ly)' to the earlier >>one was evident; it is not on a strict reading of the English and we >>are again relying on interpretation to get the intention of the law = right. >>What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge >>lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about = niceties of >>language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and = bridge=20 >>lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them. But on = the=20 >>other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by=20 >>pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. > > I think this comment is totally and completely unfair. =20 So do I. In addition, it sounds to me as if Grattan possibly does not realize that the problem with L64A2 is a very real problem in practice. The revoke penalty is probably the most basic and important penalty provision in the laws. It is needed so often that not only TDs, but also players want to understand it. I find it very unfortunate that the law book does not explain what that penalty is in words that readers can understand. Any player or TD should be able to look up something as simple as the revoke penalty in the book and get an answer that can be used without taking a TD course. That is not possible now: very few people, if any, understand L64A2 unless they're told what it is supposed to mean. The first description of the (then) new L64 in the 1987 laws I encountered was in a article in the Swedish Magazine "Bridgetidningen" (February 1987). It was written by Sven-Olov =46lodqvist, who is definitely no fool, and he had misunderstood L64 (in an unusual way). When the Danish l987 law book was published, I read L64 for myself. It was correctly (almost literally) translated, and I of course assumed that "subsequently" meant what it said. It did seem strange that the order in which the revoker wins his two tricks of which one is with "a card that could ... " should make a difference to the penalty, but that was what the book said and that was how I ruled (on the not very many occasions where I performed as a TD in those days) - until I went on a TD course and was told that the intention was different. Since then, I have heard of several TDs who have misunderstood L64, either as I did or by assuming that dummy and declarer was the same "offending player". So I was quite disappointed to see that the WBFLC had done nothing to make L64A2 usable in the 1997 laws. The wording should not be an attempt to use the smallest amount of paper possible (as it currently seems to be); such attempts often fail, and even when they succeed the result usually requires more effort to understand than a more long-winded explanation would. David Burn's suggested wording would be fine, except that I think it should be made even more clear that "the revoker" is not dummy when declarer revokes. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 04:31:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:31:01 +1100 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 EAA12304 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:30:54 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-61.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.61]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA8054135 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3632101A.CB64CCE3@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:36:26 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk comments interspersed David Burn wrote: > > [axeman] > > > South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies that he was done with the trick. > > > > [DALB] > > > > Yes, but it does not signify that the trick is done. For example, East may legitimately ask South to turn his card face up again. > > [axeman] > > That is East's right. South no longer has the right. > > [DALB] > You purchase a ticket to the opera. On the ticket is printed, 'The opera is not over until the fat lady sings'. It is a long opera and it is enjoyable. There was the grandest of standing ovations. The was no fat lady. Except for you and the custodians, the opera house is empty. The stage is dark. And the opera is not over. George Orwell > True, but so what? The point is that a trick is not over until all four players have turned down their cards. While I could imagine it possible to construct a regulation under which the trick is over for different people at different times, I could see no earthly benefit in so doing. You enter a fast food restaurant which is cook to order. On the wall is a sign which states 'Waitresses serve only one customer at a time.' There is one waitress. The customer in front of you orders and pays for a 5 kilo pot roast, well done. You say, 'I want a glass of milk'. The waitress says, 'Until the current order is complete no further orders can be taken.' An hour later, the waitress says, You look like a nice guy, I'll get your milk.' The waitress gets a glass. The waitress is fired. An ad for a waitress is placed in the paper. The pot roast gets cold. And the glass is on the counter. Roger Pewick > [axeman] > > > Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must be to a future trick. > > [DALB] > > This simply does not follow. Or at least, it follows only from axeman's premise that a trick is over for different players at different times - but I do not believe that premise to be (a) justified in Law or (b) sensible in practice. While trick one is in progress, cards played are played to trick one. There is an exception made in the case of players who wilfully lead to trick two while other players are still dealing with trick one. Such conduct is boorish at best, gamesmanship or cheating at worst, and in my view should not be sanctioned by the Laws. > > [axeman] > > The card is to the new trick unless there is convincing evidence outside of mind reading that he was fixing an old trick. > > [DALB] > > You state this as if it were a fact, but it is not - it is no more than a conclusion from a premise that appears both legally and practically unsound. Why should it not be the case that the card is to the current trick unless the current trick is over for the whole table, not just the player concerned? I do not think that the current Laws provide enough clarity to decide the question formally, but at least I am able to support my argument by references to the FLB, something that axeman (and DWS) have singularly failed to do. > > > [axeman] > > > > I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. > > > > [DALB] > > > > I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same trick twice. > > [axeman] > > That is part of the point. If his card is face up there is evidence > that he is at that trick in the play. If he adds another exposed card > there are now two exposed cards. If he adds still another exposed card > there are now three exposed cards. > > [DALB] > > And if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, the first such card is a lead to the next trick, while the second is a lead to the next trick but one! > > [axeman] > > The first is the card played to the > trick and the others are infractions that are handled as an exposed > cards subsequent of his played card and the TD so rules. And if that > extra card[s] was indeed intended as a lead/ play to the next trick, it > will get played to the next trick if it is a legal play, won't it > [actually, I can think of exceptions]. > > [DALB] > > That is not the point at all. A player who plays a card while his own card to the current trick is still face up may be either: mistakenly playing another card to the current trick; or leading prematurely to the next trick. If the former, then he is just as confused as he would be if his own card were face down after the process I have described; if the latter, he is doing no more than engaging in the deplorable practice of "fast-carding" which the Laws (absurdly) sanction for declarer but not for the defenders. Whether a player's card to the current trick is face up or face down provides no evidence at all of the trick to which he believes he is playing the card he next exposes. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 04:55:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:55:39 +1100 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 EAA12364 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:55:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zX7y4-0004Rv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:59:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:05:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >but at least I am able to support my argument by references to the >FLB, something that axeman (and DWS) have singularly failed to do. Very clever, David, but try not to act too sneakily. Your last post arguing with my point consisted of three lines with no references to the Laws, as did my reply. There are some people who would think that our references to the Laws had been the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 05:02:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 05:02:08 +1100 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 FAA12387 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 05:02:01 +1100 Received: from ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.69]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981024180546.MJCR2535.fep4@ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 20:05:46 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 20:05:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <364216c7.13621747@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If >> the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right >> to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. > >I think the reasoning is correct, but I'm not sure about the outcome. >The question is whether miscounting winners would be "careless" or >"irrational." If declarer thought he already had nine winners, he >might refuse the needed finesse. Miscounting is in general clearly "irrational". But in this case, the miscounting has already taken place, so there is no need to judge whether it would be "careless" or "irrational", only to judge that it actually happened. Then read L70A: "... as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." It would hardly be "equitable" to give declarer a trick for a finesse that he obviously had no intention of taking. So the original claim was not valid. But as others have said, the acquiescence was withdrawn too late, so declarer keeps his 9 tricks. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 05:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 05:02:18 +1100 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 FAA12394 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 05:02:11 +1100 Received: from ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.69]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981024180555.MJCT2535.fep4@ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 20:05:55 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 20:05:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <364216c7.13621747@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> However, the point is moot because the claim was a valid one. If >> the claim had been contested, the TD would not deny West the right >> to take the heart finesse, even in the absence of a statement. > >I think the reasoning is correct, but I'm not sure about the outcome. >The question is whether miscounting winners would be "careless" or >"irrational." If declarer thought he already had nine winners, he >might refuse the needed finesse. Miscounting is in general clearly "irrational". But in this case, the miscounting has already taken place, so there is no need to judge whether it would be "careless" or "irrational", only to judge that it actually happened. Then read L70A: "... as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." It would hardly be "equitable" to give declarer a trick for a finesse that he obviously had no intention of taking. So the original claim was not valid. But as others have said, the acquiescence was withdrawn too late, so declarer keeps his 9 tricks. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 06:39:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 06:39:28 +1100 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 GAA12577 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 06:39:22 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-46.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.94]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA21083; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36322B1D.9F544A5C@idt.net> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:31:41 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly prefer a two board movement. It also turns out that the weaker players don't mind actually playing aginst the stronger players as much as they mind competing for master points against them. To give an example, in my function as Tournament Manager last month, I had to field a complaint from a C player who was (to quote him) playing with a very weak partner. He objected to our masterpoint ranges for the various flights, which were "C" 0-500, "B" 501-1500, and "A", unlimited. He wanted the "C" flight to be limited to 0-300, so that he would have a better chance of winning masterpoints. While it is difficult for me to put into words my feelings about this player's concern, he does represent an appreciable segment of the the American bridge population. The idea of getting better, and thereby winning more masterpoints never seems to enter the discussions. They all seem to feel that they should be able to win points, however well or poorly they play. There is not much difference between the Stratified events and the open pairs we used to have most of the time. In truth, I rather think the stratified pairs are simply open pairs with better seeding. Irv Jesper Dybdal wrote: >..... > And I might say that surely they deserve some kind of > compensation for having to play against all those much stronger > pairs :-) > > Stratified games sound very strange to me: Is it any fun for a C > player to play against all those A & B players? Is it any fun > for an A player to play against all those B & C players? Is it > reasonable to judge A players on how good they are at getting > tops from inferior players rather than at how well they play > against other A players? > > Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, > but I cannot understand why players would want to play > competitive bridge in this way. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 07:13:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:13:59 +1100 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 HAA12635 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:13:48 +1100 Received: from modem68.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zXA7v-00074b-00; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:17:32 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:39:34 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations > Date: 22 October 1998 15:33 > > Kent wrote: > > >OK laws gurus, how should online bridge be handled? > > > Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, and as > with any other form of the game, alerting should be beneficial as far as > possible for the players that play under that jurisdiction. In > OKBridge, for example, ACBL alerting would be a terrible idea, because > the jurisdiction is different: OKBridge is not NAmerican, but world- > wide. > ++++ The WBF Executive has directed WBFLC to prepare laws for on-line bridge. Under Ton's leadership I am preparing the ground for an international drafting body with experienced contributors and have been in touch with certain people to make provisional enquiry as to their willingness to participate. A little further along the road there will no doubt be opportunity for anyone to give me any suggestions they wish to, as for instance points just brought forward by Tim Goodwin. I would expect these laws to deal with universal needs such as alerts. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 07:47:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:47:01 +1100 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 HAA12747 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:46:54 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.252] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zXAcb-0002O4-00; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bdff8f$d4de8140$fc3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:49:43 +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 [snip] David Burn's suggested wording would be fine, except that I think it should be made even more clear that "the revoker" is not dummy when declarer revokes. [new wording repeated for convenience] New L64B Unless L64A applies, then when a revoke is established, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. If the offending side won more than one of the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks, then an additional trick is transferred to the non-offending side if: The revoke card won the revoke trick; or The revoker won a trick with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick. Thanks, Jesper. I had thought that if dummy were "the revoker", one would not need to use the part of the Law that prescribes a penalty, since one would already have read the "No Penalty Assessed" part of the Law. So, I am not sure what improvement you would like to see - but if you could explain further, I will give it some thought. Also: words in my new L64B = 70. Words in the current L64A = 120. The world's timber forests are safe once more! Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 09:10:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:10:11 +1100 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 JAA12960 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:10:05 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA10124 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 23:13:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 23:13 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn 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: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > Example: AJ1098 > > opposite K765. If a no-statement claim requires five tricks in the > > suit, claimer must lose to the queen unless it is singleton. > > FWIW I agree with this unless there are special circumstances in a > particular hand that make losing plays irrational. For example, a full > count on the hand might already have been obtained. Conversely there are situations where losing to a singleton Q is rational. Eg being in the hand with K765 and no outside entries - if you know that RHO has at most one spade a first round finesse is well with the odds. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 09:52:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:52:02 +1100 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 JAA13056 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:51:56 +1100 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 SAA01479 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA15550 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:55:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810242255.SAA15550@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Burn > If the Laws had not meant to give discretion to the TD in L50 to > override the general provision of L49, then it seems to me that there > would be no need at all for the exception clause in L50 (or indeed for > the first sentence of L50 at all). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the exception clause in L50 was for the specific circumstances in L49 where the card does not become a penalty card. (Is it difficult to limit your line lengths to 72 characters?) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 09:59:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:59:33 +1100 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 JAA13102 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:59:24 +1100 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 TAA03867 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA15585 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:03:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810242303.TAA15585@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Stratified games sound very strange to me... It is basically an open game except that masterpoints are distributed to strat B and lower players even if they wouldn't win any in the open competition. Like most types of competition, some people like it and others don't. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 11:10:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:10:32 +1100 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 LAA13245 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:10:24 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.83] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zXDnY-0001DN-00; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <006201bdffac$419ce120$532f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:13:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [DALB] >> If the Laws had not meant to give discretion to the TD in L50 to >> override the general provision of L49, then it seems to me that there >> would be no need at all for the exception clause in L50 (or indeed for >> the first sentence of L50 at all). [SW] > >Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the exception clause in L50 was for >the specific circumstances in L49 where the card does not become a >penalty card. > >(Is it difficult to limit your line lengths to 72 characters?) > That could well be; we may have to await an opinion from Grattan. But the specific reference to the Director seems to suggest that the question is one of discretion by the TD. If not, then L50 would have said: "A card prematurely exposed...is a penalty card unless these Laws specify otherwise". I have tried various devices to overcome the formatting problems that my messages appear to create. None of them has worked. I am condemned by my ISP to use Outlook Express, a truly awful email client that does more or less exactly what it likes regardless of the settings that I use. I'm sorry for the problems with line lengths, rogue characters and so forth that bedevil my messages - but as far as I can see, I am a member of the non-offending side. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 11:53:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:53:32 +1100 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 LAA13335 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:53:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXEUZ-0002AZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 00:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:13:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <363a0763.9682242@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >So I was quite disappointed to see that the WBFLC had done >nothing to make L64A2 usable in the 1997 laws. > >The wording should not be an attempt to use the smallest amount >of paper possible (as it currently seems to be); such attempts >often fail, and even when they succeed the result usually >requires more effort to understand than a more long-winded >explanation would. The wording we used in Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified was: PROCEDURE WHEN A REVOKE IS ESTABLISHED How many tricks did the OFFENDING SIDE win from the revoke trick onwards (INCLUDING the revoke trick)? [a] NONE: there is no Penalty. [b] ONE: PENALTY ONE TRICK transferred. [c] TWO or MORE: Did the revoke card win the revoke trick? YES PENALTY TWO TRICKS transferred. NO Did the OFFENDER (not his Partner) win a subsequent trick with a card that could have been legally* played to the revoke trick? YES PENALTY TWO TRICKS transferred. NO PENALTY ONE TRICK transferred. * Note: this refers to "a card that could have been LEGALLY played to the revoke trick", not necessarily reasonably! Tricks are transferred as shown to the opponents at the end of the hand. If the revoke penalty is insufficient compensation for the non-offenders then see RESTORING EQUITY on page 30. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 12:13:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:13:30 +1100 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 MAA13356 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:13:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXEnu-0000UU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:17:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:13:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: <006f01bdff92$2a032840$fc3463c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >>David Burn wrote: >>>Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a >club", to which >>>trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to >which trick >>>was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. >and DWS wrote: >> When South "ruffed a club" was he playing his first card or his >>second card? His second card. Was he following to LHO's opening >lead? >>No. From this, to which trick was he actually playing when he played >>his second card? Trick two. >Of course, a player who plays the fifth card to trick one is playing >his second card - this does not seem to me to be relevant. If it is >possible to play a fifth card to trick n - and the Laws specifically >make provision for such a play - then that will automatically involve >the player in playing his (n+1) th card. > >Moreover, since the trick to which South contributed his second card >was the trick initiated by West's opening club lead, for that trick >was still in progress, then he was indeed "following to LHO's opening >lead" - or at any rate, playing to the trick initiated by LHO's >opening lead. By "or at any rate" do you mean these are the same? Because that is the crux of the matter - they are not the same. Either declarer was playing a fifth card to the trick **led by LHO** or he wasn't. You have asked for some Law numbers, so I shall quote some. L44B supports my reading of the law, not yours: you are claiming that declarer followed to RHO's lead, but L44B says the trick is a lead followed by three other cards: declarer's second card was not part of that. L45E is the real Law, and having quoted it, I did not realise I had to quote it again. It makes a clear distinction between a card led to the next trick, and a fifth card played to the last trick, and leaves it as a TD's decision. This card was not a card following the lead of the first trick so was not a fifth card played to the trick: it was the first card played to the second trick and therefore led by the definitions. > And that trick, of course, was trick one. It would make >no difference to my argument whether West and North, as well as East, >still had their trick 1 cards face up on the table - would it to >yours, and if so, why? No difference at all. I have not got involved with quitting tricks and so on because I do not believe it relevant. >Not all of my posts on this topic have contained references to the >Laws, but I have already cited 44B, 45E and 65A in support of my >argument, and I see no need to do so again - not even to defend myself >against a charge of sneakiness! It is difficult to see what L65A has to do with the current case, so I cede that Law to you. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 13:28:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:28:40 +1100 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 NAA13481 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:28:32 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-8.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.8]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA8234460 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36328E1A.60FF77DD@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:34:02 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: [Fwd: LOOT? revoke?] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------8258EE64DA2A54B63C93E36C" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------8258EE64DA2A54B63C93E36C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies for copying David Burn separately. Roger Pewick --------------8258EE64DA2A54B63C93E36C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <36324FB5.D66A3B7C@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:07:49 -0500 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In answer to my failure to state my basis from the FLB... Roger Pewick ps An after thought about the concept of a completed trick which may even resolve this mess. 'Completed trick' only appears as a heading [L65A] not as text to the laws. wbflc has stated that headings are not the law. My interpretation of L65A is that it states the proper TIME to turn one's card over. In other words, every one must wait until each has contributed his card to the trick before anyone turns theirs over. Conversely, it says that it is improper to turn one's card before all four have played to the trick. It says nothing else about past, nor future play which is what David B insists. Is this interpretation not valid? [BEGIN COPY OF DB PREVIOUS POST for post script] ubject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:08:01 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Axeman wrote: --------snip-------- > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > card. and Jan Peter wrote: Yes, you can justify that by "deeming it [South's small trump] as led" (L45c2, and from there to L55) If a trick ends when and not before all four players have turned their cards face down, then trick 2 has not ended at the point when South "ruffs" the CK.(L65A seems to support this interpretation of when a trick is completed). I would have some difficulty in deeming South's card to be a "lead" in that case - to deem a card to be a "lead", one needs to be satisfied that the player intended to lead it (i.e that it should be the first card played to the trick as per the Definitions). At least, I would imagine that those who believe intent to be relevant as far as the Laws are concerned would not consider that a player who clearly intended to ruff an enemy card could possibly have intended to lead. *[END COPY OF DB PREVIOUS POST] [BEGIN COPY OF RP PREVIOUS POST] Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:39:18 -0500 From: axeman To: reply BLML References: 1 Apologies for losing my signature in my original post, it was late at night. John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > Axeman wrote: > > > > I looked all through the laws > > Then please cite which law applies to each paragraph! > > > and what I found is that each player is > > supposed to turn over their card after all four cards are exposed to a > > trick. > Agreed--Law 65A. > > The implication is strong that a player is not to play a > > subsequent card prior to turning his card to the previous trick. > Where? Law 65A doesn't use "should" or "must." We've debated these > semantics before :) Law 44 doesn't say anything about turning cards, > so I don't think that you were referring to that law. L65A says that each player turns his own card when all four cards have been played. L44G says that the winner of a trick leads to the next trick. This implies that [a] you play to a trick [b] after everyone plays to the trick you turn your card over [c] you then play to the next trick, supposedly in turn [L44B] > > What I also found that the player who won the last trick is the one who > > leads to the next trick. It does not say that the trick must be quitted > > before a lead is made is made to the next trick [assuredly it is best, > > though], merely that the trick must be won. > Agreed--Law 44A. > > As far as a fifth card to a trick, it seems that it would apply to > > instances when a card is stuck to another or a player turns their card > > prematurely and set in a rhythm plays an 'extra card'. > Not necessarily--in fact, Law 67A2 implies that the "stuck cards" would be > simultaneous cards and that any non-simultaneous play of cards would be > considered a "fifth card." Actually, L67A2 specifically refers to that instance [such as stuck cards] as a fifth card to a trick, naming L45E and L58B. This tends to imply that a card not in tempo, as in this case, looks like a lead, not a fifth card since [a] four cards were legally played to the trick and [b] declarer had properly turned over their card [as well as two others]. > > That declarer 'fails' to remember the winning card to the preceding > > trick and plays 'apparently thinking' that RHO has played a new king of > > clubs is a mental error- a mistake. It is every player's duty to pay > > attention and declarer did not do so. It is much clearer to me that > > declarer has played a card out of turn, being a LOOT and LHO has > > accepted it plus has failed to follow suit in the bargain. > It's a LOOT only if the trick is over. I'm still not convinced that the > trick is over. After four legally played cards have been contributed to a trick, the player who is the proper leader to the trick has been identified. Once a player has turned over their card he is ready to play to the next trick. Of course he ought to wait for the the whole table to turn over their cards before playing to the next trick. I think that it is more appropriate to say that a trick is over for a player once he turns his card and that once his card is turned over, he can not play another card to that trick without a ruling by a director [to correct a revoke or play an unplayed penalty card, for instance]. > > It seems to me that the best ruling in this case is that attention to > > the irregularity has been made and declarer's LOOT has been accepted. > > If LHO has revoked, they must correct it in addition to having a penalty > > card. > > The current thinking that declarer's play is a fifth card to a trick > > creates a real mess, creating damage to the defenders. After all, are > > the defenders the only ones culpable for stopping declarer 's > > irregularity. Imo, a player is most culpable for his own > > irregularities. Further, the laws make it a point that the next player > > in turn is permitted to play after a play out of turn. If there is no > > double standard, then play proceeds usually without aggravations from > > L16. L55A, L56, L57C. > >From my interpretation of the laws, well, there is a double standard. > Look at Law 47. In many instances, declarer may withdraw a card with > no penalty, but if defenders try to withdraw a card, it's a penalty card. > > I fail to see any posting that satisfactorily resolves this situation > > after declarer's irregular play and his LHO plays. I see no justice in > > punishing the other side because declarer committed an irregularity and > > the NOS did not catch it. Why is it a bigger crime to not catch > > someone else's crime in time? Just take a look at the punishment of > > LHO's play after declarer's ruled non-play. > And look at the punishment that the defenders will receive from a corrected > revoke! It's the same (since, depending on the trump LOOT play, East may > win the trick). I think you are referring to the fact that LHO did not follow suit to the trump LOOT. Of course, if it had become an established revoke there would be a revoke penalty. If corrected, there would be a penalty card etc. But if LHO had played a proper card, there would be no penalty to his side, but perhaps the defenders may have been better off had LHO had called the director and not accepted the LOOT. > The question remains: when is the trick over? If there was no irregularity in the play of 4 cards to the trick, the trick is over for a player once he turns his card over [and only a director can reopen the trick]. Once all four cards are turned over, the trick is quitted. > John [END COPY OF RP PREVIOUS POST] David Burn wrote: > > [axeman] > > > South has turned over his card to the previous trick. This signifies that he was done with the trick. > > > > [DALB] > > > > Yes, but it does not signify that the trick is done. For example, East may legitimately ask South to turn his card face up again. > > [axeman] > > That is East's right. South no longer has the right. > > [DALB] > > True, but so what? The point is that a trick is not over until all four players have turned down their cards. While I could imagine it possible to construct a regulation under which the trick is over for different people at different times, I could see no earthly benefit in so doing. > > [axeman] > > > Since south is done with the previous trick, the next card he plays must be to a future trick. > > [DALB] > > This simply does not follow. Or at least, it follows only from axeman's premise that a trick is over for different players at different times - but I do not believe that premise to be (a) justified in Law or (b) sensible in practice. While trick one is in progress, cards played are played to trick one. There is an exception made in the case of players who wilfully lead to trick two while other players are still dealing with trick one. Such conduct is boorish at best, gamesmanship or cheating at worst, and in my view should not be sanctioned by the Laws. > > [axeman] > > The card is to the new trick unless there is convincing evidence outside of mind reading that he was fixing an old trick. > > [DALB] > > You state this as if it were a fact, but it is not - it is no more than a conclusion from a premise that appears both legally and practically unsound. Why should it not be the case that the card is to the current trick unless the current trick is over for the whole table, not just the player concerned? I do not think that the current Laws provide enough clarity to decide the question formally, *****Point of contention***** but at least I am able to support my argument by references to the FLB, something that axeman (and DWS) have singularly failed to do. *****Point of contention***** > > [axeman] > > > > I think that if we were to closely examine the mechanics of playing cards to trick[s] we would find that in the absence of a timely communication [about a played card], a necessary condition for a contestant to play an extra card to a trick is that none of the cards played by that contestant [to the trick] have been turned over. There may be other conditions. > > > > [DALB] > > > > I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, if a player has not turned down his card to the current trick, I would think it most unlikely that he would play another one. It is when a player has turned his card down while other cards are up that a player becomes confused and plays to the same trick twice. > > [axeman] > > That is part of the point. If his card is face up there is evidence > that he is at that trick in the play. If he adds another exposed card > there are now two exposed cards. If he adds still another exposed card > there are now three exposed cards. > > [DALB] > > And if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, the first such card is a lead to the next trick, while the second is a lead to the next trick but one! > > [axeman] > > The first is the card played to the > trick and the others are infractions that are handled as an exposed > cards subsequent of his played card and the TD so rules. And if that > extra card[s] was indeed intended as a lead/ play to the next trick, it > will get played to the next trick if it is a legal play, won't it > [actually, I can think of exceptions]. > > [DALB] > > That is not the point at all. A player who plays a card while his own card to the current trick is still face up may be either: mistakenly playing another card to the current trick; or leading prematurely to the next trick. If the former, then he is just as confused as he would be if his own card were face down after the process I have described; if the latter, he is doing no more than engaging in the deplorable practice of "fast-carding" which the Laws (absurdly) sanction for declarer but not for the defenders. Whether a player's card to the current trick is face up or face down provides no evidence at all of the trick to which he believes he is playing the card he next exposes. --------------8258EE64DA2A54B63C93E36C-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 15:00:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:00:27 +1100 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA13624 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:00:19 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.151] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zXHO7-00023k-00; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: <001801bdffcc$7e3118c0$972e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:03:57 -0000 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 DWS wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>>David Burn wrote: >>>>Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a >>club", to which >>>>trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to >>which trick >>>>was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. > >>and DWS wrote: > >>> When South "ruffed a club" was he playing his first card or his >>>second card? His second card. Was he following to LHO's opening >>lead? >>>No. From this, to which trick was he actually playing when he played >>>his second card? Trick two. > >>Of course, a player who plays the fifth card to trick one is playing >>his second card - this does not seem to me to be relevant. If it is >>possible to play a fifth card to trick n - and the Laws specifically >>make provision for such a play - then that will automatically involve >>the player in playing his (n+1) th card. >> >>Moreover, since the trick to which South contributed his second card >>was the trick initiated by West's opening club lead, for that trick >>was still in progress, then he was indeed "following to LHO's opening >>lead" - or at any rate, playing to the trick initiated by LHO's >>opening lead. > > By "or at any rate" do you mean these are the same? Because that is >the crux of the matter - they are not the same. Charitably, I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "following". Declarer was not playing a card that immediately followed LHO's lead - that much is obvious - but it is my contention that he was (in reality, though not in his own mind) following to a trick that had been started by LHO's lead of a club, for that trick was not over at the time he played his second card to it. If you think that "following" means "playing the card immediately following", then you are (obviously) in error, for that is not what is commonly meant by "following to a trick"; a player leads to a trick, and then the second, third and fourth players in turn "follow" with a card to that trick. Any one of those players (or the leader himself) may then, by mistake, "follow" again with a fifth card to the trick - that situation is the one primarily envisaged by L45E, and that is the one with which we have to deal in this case. Uncharitably, I find it very hard to believe that you do not understand that a player can "follow" to a trick in fourth position, or that he can follow to that trick twice although in fourth position. Of course I mean that a player in whatever position who plays to the trick started by West's opening lead "follows" to that trick - by "or at any rate", I meant no more than "to paraphrase for the simple-minded". West led to trick one, and trick one was in progress when South played both of his cards, therefore both cards were for practical purposes cards played while he was "following" to trick one. The first of them was the fourth card played to that trick, the second was the fifth. Look. West led a club, thereby starting a trick. Everyone followed to that trick by playing a card. Then, for whatever reason, South followed to that trick again by playing another card. He did not lead (out of turn or otherwise) a card to another trick, for he did not believe that it was his lead, nor would he have played the card he did actually play if he had believed that it was his lead, nor was it possible for another trick to be initiated because the current trick was not complete. West did not follow to a lead out of turn, for there was no such lead to which he could follow, but he exposed a card because he was fooled by South into thinking that it was his turn, and to play a card was his duty. People had showered cards onto the table when they should not have done, but that was because they were idiots, and the sensible thing to do (as Hermann de Wael suggested a long time ago) was to let them pick those cards up and get on with it. A plausible (pace Steve Willner) interpretation of L45E and L50 would allow them to do precisely that. The Stevenson Doctrine would have South leading out of turn, West "condoning" this lead by revoking on it (a reference to the original case shows that if South's card was indeed a LOOT West's card was a potential revoke), no one playing any of the cards that they would have wanted to play in normal circumstances, and the entire table breaking up in abject misery. > > Either declarer was playing a fifth card to the trick **led by LHO** >or he wasn't. You have asked for some Law numbers, so I shall quote >some. L44B supports my reading of the law, not yours: you are claiming >that declarer followed to RHO's lead I claim no such thing, nor could any such inference conceivably be drawn by anyone who had read what I have written and was familiar with the English language. At no time have I asserted that RHO actually led a card; such a notion would be even more at variance with the facts than the position you seek to adopt, so how could I claim that declarer was in reality following to a lead that I have never claimed existed? Of course, in his own mind South (probably) thought that East had led another king of clubs, so that in his own mind South was following to RHO's lead - but what was in South's mind is not at all relevant, nor have I ever said that it was. West led a club to trick one. East followed with the king. South followed with his singleton club. Then, while East's king of clubs was still face up on the table, so that the first trick was still the current trick, South followed to that trick again with a trump, the fifth card played to the first trick. >but L44B says the trick is a lead >followed by three other cards: declarer's second card was not part of >that. So it does, and so it wasn't. Trick one was a lead, followed by three other cards, and later by a fourth other card played while trick 1 was still in progress. That fourth other card was not - in the mind of the person who played it or in anything conforming to reality - a lead to the next trick, and any quasi-legal "interpretation" that makes it so is therefore bound to be absurd. > L45E is the real Law, and having quoted it, I did not realise I had to >quote it again. It makes a clear distinction between a card led to the >next trick, and a fifth card played to the last trick, and leaves it as >a TD's decision. This card was not a card following the lead of the >first trick so was not a fifth card played to the trick: Well, it was a card played following the lead to the first trick (it certainly did not precede it). And it was a card played while the first trick was still in progress. And it was a card played with no intention of initiating the second trick. It seems to me, therefore, that it belonged to the first trick... > it was the >first card played to the second trick Not by any stretch. If you asked South what it was at the time he played it, he would probably have told you that it was the second card played to the second trick. If you asked East or North what it was, they would have been a bit mystified, but they would probably have concluded that South was playing another card to the first trick. West, poor sap, had no idea what was happening, so we'll stick him with a penalty card just to keep him on his toes. The one thing that South's card was not, in the minds of any of the players or in terms of the cards played onto the table in a sequence conforming to the Laws, was the first card played to the second trick. There is no practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the Laws themselves. >and therefore led by the >definitions. Sage Derby. Of course. > > It is difficult to see what L65A has to do with the current case, so I >cede that Law to you. Well, a point at issue was when a trick is complete. If I did not know better, I might think that the Law headed "Completed Trick" would provide some guidance. You will tell me, with some relish, that "the headings are not part of the Laws". I will tell you, with some sadness, that not only do I know this, but I consider it another symptom of what is rotten about the whole business. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 15:34:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:34:37 +1100 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 PAA13683 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:34:30 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-10.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.176]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA02846; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 00:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3632AB1C.872B4942@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 00:37:49 -0400 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke References: <363a0763.9682242@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------30E769910AF50AF38B7B2F37" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------30E769910AF50AF38B7B2F37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:35:35 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > >Grattan wrote: > > > >>+++++ 64A2 is not the best dressed law in the world; its drafter > >>thought the reference back of the later 'subsequent(ly)' to the earlier > >>one was evident; it is not on a strict reading of the English and we > >>are again relying on interpretation to get the intention of the law right. > >>What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge > >>lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about niceties of > >>language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and bridge > >>lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them. But on the > >>other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by > >>pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. > > > > I think this comment is totally and completely unfair. > > So do I. > > In addition, it sounds to me as if Grattan possibly does not > realize that the problem with L64A2 is a very real problem in > practice. > > The revoke penalty is probably the most basic and important > penalty provision in the laws. It is needed so often that not > only TDs, but also players want to understand it. > > I find it very unfortunate that the law book does not explain > what that penalty is in words that readers can understand. Any > player or TD should be able to look up something as simple as the > revoke penalty in the book and get an answer that can be used > without taking a TD course. That is not possible now: very few > people, if any, understand L64A2 unless they're told what it is > supposed to mean. > > The first description of the (then) new L64 in the 1987 laws I > encountered was in a article in the Swedish Magazine > "Bridgetidningen" (February 1987). It was written by Sven-Olov > Flodqvist, who is definitely no fool, and he had misunderstood > L64 (in an unusual way). > > When the Danish l987 law book was published, I read L64 for > myself. It was correctly (almost literally) translated, and I of > course assumed that "subsequently" meant what it said. It did > seem strange that the order in which the revoker wins his two > tricks of which one is with "a card that could ... " should make > a difference to the penalty, but that was what the book said and > that was how I ruled (on the not very many occasions where I > performed as a TD in those days) - until I went on a TD course > and was told that the intention was different. > > Since then, I have heard of several TDs who have misunderstood > L64, either as I did or by assuming that dummy and declarer was > the same "offending player". > > So I was quite disappointed to see that the WBFLC had done > nothing to make L64A2 usable in the 1997 laws. > > The wording should not be an attempt to use the smallest amount > of paper possible (as it currently seems to be); such attempts > often fail, and even when they succeed the result usually > requires more effort to understand than a more long-winded > explanation would. > > David Burn's suggested wording would be fine, except that I think > it should be made even more clear that "the revoker" is not dummy > when declarer revokes. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). And when dummy wins the trick that declarer revoked on, declarer did not win the trick!!!! -- Nancy T. Dressing --------------30E769910AF50AF38B7B2F37 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for nancy Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: nancy n: ;nancy email;internet: nancy@pinehurst.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------30E769910AF50AF38B7B2F37-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 15:59:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:59:18 +1100 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 PAA13709 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:59:12 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26466 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810250502.WAA26466@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: When to call TD after hesitation? Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:58:21 -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 Bill Bickford writes: > My understanding is that the director should be called when the huddle > occurs and before the partner has taken any action. I believe the > rationale is that the partner should be officially aware of his/her > obligations before taking any action. While I believe this is the > rule (at least in the ACBL), I have reservations since this greatly > increases the number of director calls; I would love to have this > area revisited. > *Duplicate Decisions*, the ACBL guidebook for Club Directors, which I regard as only quasi-official (at least for non-club games), has this to say: "When a player feels that an opponent has taken action that could have been suggested by such information [UI], the Director is immediately called to the table." ELECTIONS BY THE ACBL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, in the back of the Laws, puts it differently: "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids [sic] which could result in damage to their side." This election also nullifies the optional L16A1, which permits a player to announce that he reserves the right to summon the director later. It says, in effect, to call the TD when an opponent takes an action that might be based on UI, even when there is no evidence that this is so. Unfortunately L16A2, not an option, contradicts this procedure: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith." A footnote clarifies this: "When play ends, or as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." You have to have seen the opponent's hand before a call to the TD is proper. So, do you call the TD immediately "on suspicion," obeying the "Election," or wait until there is evidence, obeying L16A2? The pragmatic answer is to agree with the opponents about UI at the time it occurs, but not to call the TD until there is "substantial reason" to do so. More often than not, the TD won't have to be bothered. If the opponents do not agree about the UI, call the TD immediately or forget it. Waiting is almost certain to harm your case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 17:21:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:21:10 +1100 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 RAA13899 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:21:05 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA07402 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 23:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810250624.XAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 23:21:07 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > In a Tucson, Arizona, regional a few weeks ago, there were two C > > pairs in my section's E-W field. They tied with 42%, lowest score > > in the section. For this achievement, tying for first place in the > > C stratum, they each received 1.23 masterpoints. A cynic might say > > they tied for last place and deserved nothing. > > > > I used to wonder why the ACBL doesn't require across-the-field > > matchpointing. I think I know the answer now. Those two pairs might > > have won zero points if C players were ranked across-the-field. > > [So much for trying to cut down on my BLML postings, especially to this > thread...] > > Marv, are you confusing "across the field matchpointing" with "across > the field ranking?" Or am I misunderstanding what happened? Did you > mean that 42% was the highest score of all strat C pairs in the event, > thus these two won the event in strat C? Or was 42% only the highest > strat C score in section? I guess I didn't make it clear. Matchpointing was by section, 8 top, for each session. There were two sections and top should have been 17. The two C pairs in my field tied for first (or last) in the section, winning 1.23 masterpoints each for a 42% score. If the matchpointing had been across-the-field, then ranking for each session would automatically have been across-the-field too. The pairs might have been out of the money, or maybe one of them would have been second (with tying much less probable). And no, I didn't look to see how the C players in the other section did. > > In either case, matchpointing across the field or across sections > wouldn't have changed anything fundamental. For event and section > awards, strat C pairs are competing only with each other. One of them > must win the event (or more than one may tie), If the highest strat C > score is 10% -- or 0.5 matchpoint with all the others scoring zero! -- > that pair wins strat C. Exactly. But if four C pairs are playing E-W in two sections that are matchpointed and ranked across-the-field, then there will be (barring a three or four-way tie!) a first and second place (or tie) for two pairs, with two out of the money. That seems more reasonable. It doesn't seem right that two pairs that tie for last place in section should get point awards. I guess it keeps them coming. Incidentally, I doubt very much whether a separate C-flight event, with the 8 pairs playing a four-table Howell, would have paid as much in masterpoints as was won by them in the stratified game. Just guessing. Glancing at my ACBL Handbook, I see that more total points are awarded for placing in a session when matchpointing/ranking are section-by-section instead of across-the-field. I imagine this is the reason for the reluctance to score across-the-field. If there's a mathematical justification for this, I don't know what it is. Some ACBL units and clubs are delighted when a 32nd pair shows up at the last moment, so they can redistribute the boards from the 15-1/2 table game that was set up to two 8-table games, matchpointed separately. The delay doesn't matter, nor the quality of the game; more masterpoints are given out (8.76 vs 7.04, for an open club masterpoint game), and that's what counts! > You will be relieved to know, however, that second place out of two > does not pay any master points. :-) But the winner gets the full > award, whatever it is. Yes, I think I did look, and a clear first in section for two Cs paid something like 1.78 (I don't remember exactly), not the 2.46 one might expect, and second place of course got nothing. > Matchpointing across the field or across sections might have changed > the scores a little bit and broken the tie. Or a different pair > altogether might have won if you mean 42% was the best C score in the > whole field. But somebody would have won strat C with a score not much > different. In fact, 42% sounds only a little low to win strat C in a > regional event. (I would expect more like 45%, and some days a Flight > C pair plays well into the fifties.) Is 42% to win really rare, though? Not with 8 top. > > The purpose of matchpointing across sections is to reduce randomness, > nothing else. For that purpose, matchpointing across two sections (>20 > tables or so), is almost as good as matchpointing across an infinite > field. David Grabiner has demonstrated this to my satisfaction, at > least. I don't know whether anyone realized this earlier. Two sections at a time sounds reasonable, except maybe to the pair who lose by 1/2 matchpoint because they sat in the wrong pair of sections. If you're going to matchpoint across more than one section, you might as well do them all. The computer doesn't mind. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 21:58:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:58:55 +1100 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 VAA14274 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:58:47 +1100 Received: from modem45.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zXNwJ-0004qJ-00; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:02:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:02:32 -0000 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. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Revoke > Date: 22 October 1998 03:35 > > Grattan wrote: ==================\x/==================== > > David wrote: > I think this comment is totally and completely unfair. The normal > meaning ascribed to the term "bridge lawyer" is a player who wishes to > have three strikes on a board before he is out. What we have in this > thread and others are people whose understanding of some Laws is less > than total. In this particular thread it started with one of BLML's > nicest people getting told she had the Law wrong, and asking for help. > I am prepared to help such people for as long as they wish to ask > questions. If you think that this makes it a breeding ground for bridge > lawyers then no-one is forcing you to remain here. > ++ When I first noticed the thread I thought is was just a case for an experienced TD to give advice on a plain matter of law. So I was deleting it to make room for the other vigorous activity in my emails. My view of a 'bridge lawyer' has nothing to do in principle with his bridge results; for me a bridge lawyer is one who carries pedantry to excess in picking over the laws and regulations of the game. Whilst not everyone who contributes is such a person the list offers an open channel for those who are; the challenging minority is that element in the game which devotes a significant effort to searching out, and sometimes exploiting, weaknesses in the laws. There are such weaknesses and I believe WBFLC by legislation and interpretation has a duty to strengthen them, but I deprecate the exploitation of any vulnerability that may be uncovered - hence my support for the view, recently re-affirmed by WBFLC, that the intentions of the promulgators are the ultimate resolution of any doubt in the meaning of the laws where there is no fresh WBFLC pronouncement. ++ =====================\x/=================== > > You define a person who asks for a ruling on a revoke as a member of a > challenging minority? > ++ No. You misrepresent my meaning.++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 22:28:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 22:28:56 +1100 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 WAA14359 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 22:28:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-149.uunet.be [194.7.14.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09214 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:32:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3632F9C5.4A6B7D1B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:13:25 +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: Re: clear rules References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> <36322B1D.9F544A5C@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics > of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in > small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, > then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, > playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in > two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly > prefer a two board movement. > "strongly prefer" is the sort of statement that does not cut wood. Players strongly prefer what they are used to. In Antwerp, players strongly prefer a four-board movement, because they don't have to move as many times, except in my club, where they strongly prefer a three-board movement because they meet ten opponents. Please don't defend any movement because players "strongly prefer" it. > > > > Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, > > but I cannot understand why players would want to play > > competitive bridge in this way. > > -- > > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). I second that opinion. Either you play all-against-all, and you will get clobbered, or you play in separate groups. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 23:09:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:09:15 +1100 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 XAA14428 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:09:08 +1100 Received: from modem63.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.191] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zXP2R-00008t-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:12:52 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:11:36 -0000 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. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] ==============snipping as I go============ ---------- > From: David Burn > > DWS wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > >>>David Burn wrote: > >>>>Let me see if I can put this simply enough. When South "ruffed a > >>club", to which > >>>>trick had that club actually been played? Trick one. Therefore, to > >>which trick > >>>>was South actually playing when he ruffed? Trick one. > > > >>and DWS wrote: > >>Moreover, since the trick to which South contributed his second card > >>was the trick initiated by West's opening club lead, for that trick > >>was still in progress, then he was indeed "following to LHO's > opening +++ I think we could perhaps agree that the possibilities are that the card is an involuntary contribution to trick one, an involuntary play to trick two, or a card faced in between the two. Since there is no trick two I do not think we can attach any card to it, so either it is within the scope of trick one or it is a card exposed between two tricks. I have no strong inclination to either of these but since Law 45E exists (and is no different in effects from exposed card laws) I am comfortable with this interpretation of the facts.+++ > > Charitably, I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "following". > Declarer was not playing a card that immediately followed LHO's lead - > that much is obvious - but it is my contention that he was (in > reality, though not in his own mind) following to a trick that had > been started by LHO's lead of a club, ==========================================. > > Look. West led a club, thereby starting a trick. Everyone followed to > that trick by playing a card. Then, for whatever reason, South > followed to that trick again by playing another card. He did not lead > (out of turn or otherwise) a card to another trick, ++++ Leading does involve a purposeful act; the Director is required to determine whether a card is led. This one is not a lead.++++ ============================\x/============ > > L45E is the real Law, and having quoted it, I did not realise I had > to > >quote it again. It makes a clear distinction between a card led to > the > >next trick, and a fifth card played to the last trick, and leaves it > as > >a TD's decision. This card was not a card following the lead of the > >first trick so was not a fifth card played to the trick: > > Well, it was a card played following the lead to the first trick (it > certainly did not precede it). And it was a card played while the > first trick was still in progress. And it was a card played with no > intention of initiating the second trick. It seems to me, therefore, > that it belonged to the first trick... > > > it was the > >first card played to the second trick > > Not by any stretch. If you asked South what it was at the time he > played it, he would probably have told you that it was the second card > played to the second trick. If you asked East or North what it was, > they would have been a bit mystified, but they would probably have > concluded that South was playing another card to the first trick. ++++ I am not so sure they would have that much clue++++ > West, poor sap, had no idea what was happening, so we'll stick him > with a penalty card just to keep him on his toes. The one thing that > South's card was not, in the minds of any of the players or in terms > of the cards played onto the table in a sequence conforming to the > Laws, was the first card played to the second trick. There is no > practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a > bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I > have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing > list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the > Laws themselves. ++ It is now known that I have some sympathy for these feelings although I would want to distinguish between sense and nonsense; there is sense written, particularly when taking the known meaning of the law and helping less experienced TDs to apply it. However, the nature of *this* discussion now illustrates the weakness of BLML when its denizens freewheel around areas of interpretation. If any seekers of knowledge read the thread what do you imagine they make of it? - an academy of mystagogues? ++ > .=====================\x/================= > > Well, a point at issue was when a trick is complete. If I did not know > better, I might think that the Law headed "Completed Trick" would > provide some guidance. You will tell me, with some relish, that "the > headings are not part of the Laws". I will tell you, with some > sadness, that not only do I know this, but I consider it another > symptom of what is rotten about the whole business. ++++ It is a lawyer's ploy to put in headings and then exclude them. (I think it keeps them in work.) I suspect it may have been an invention of the British eagerly adopted by their cousins abroad. I think the laws should be written like the rules of most games, without headings to point people in the wrong direction. The one that reads 'Completed Trick' leaves it vaguely open as to what its relationship is with the trick - is it defining when a trick is completed, is it discussing disposal of a trick that has been completed or procedure following completion? As they are I believe the headings serve to confuse. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 25 23:55:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:55:31 +1100 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 XAA14498 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:55:24 +1100 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 HAA09453 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA26746 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:59:10 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199810251259.HAA26746@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: taking a break To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:59:09 -0500 (EST) 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 Unfortunately I have to take a break from these discussions for a few months. I'm working on my doctorate, and the timetable has been moved up a couple months on me for various reasons. (I was distracted by this when I made the egghead L42B2 instead of L42B1 citation.) Simply put, I can't afford the daily ritual of going through all of the messages, and trying to archive them daily simply would tempt me to read them, RTFLB, and reply. I'll grab an occasional archive and return full-force in the spring. Best regards, John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 00:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:16:34 +1100 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16797 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:16:27 +1100 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA65384 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:20:14 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA15376 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:17:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199810251317.JAA15376@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:17:45, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: >However, it would be ridiculous to have a competition where some players >are playing to EBU rules on alerts/UI/having none etc and others are >playing to ACBL regs. OKB should of course adopt their own set of regs >whether as an SO in its own right or by recognising WBF/EBU/ACBL as the >SO. I would guess that adopting ACBL regs would cause problems for the >least number of players. Players organising a special competition could >choose their SO for that purpose. > >Creeping Americanization strikes again I suppose. Tim mistakenly assumes that the ACBL imposes its regulations onto on line bridge companies. OKbridge sets its own regulations for games that it runs, even for the ACBL master point game that it runs once a week. If an OLB (on line bridge) company is running a game that will award master points to members of the ACBL and also to members of one of the European NCBOs, whose regulations would apply? The OLB company must be the SO, and use whatever regulations it has would be in force. How could it be otherwise, as Tim points out. If the ACBL were conducting an ACBL event using the service of an OLB company (as will happen at the San Diego regional tournament), then the ACBL is the SO and sets the regulations for that event. If the WBF were to conduct a championship event (no doubt requiring the use of officials to monitor the players) using the same OLB company then the WBF regulations would apply. If a British company were conducting a game that awards ACBL master points (don't laugh, it could happen) would EBU rules apply just because the server is in England? You can see by now why it is important to not use current practice and technology when devising the Laws or regulations that apply to OLB. Kent Burghard ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 03:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:27:37 +1100 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 DAA17354 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:27:30 +1100 Received: from ip60.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.60]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981025163116.NQPM2535.fep4@ip60.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:31:16 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: BLML and the WBFLC Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:31:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <363a51be.7787357@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 re-reading Grattan's description (in the "Revoke" thread) of what BLML has become, I would like to comment on a few specific points. On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:49:08 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge >lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about = niceties of >language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and = bridge=20 >lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them.=20 Most BLML subscribers are TDs. It is the TD's job to interpret the laws (L81C5). We get better at doing that if we discuss our opinions with other interpreters. That is what BLML is for. >But on the=20 >other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by=20 >pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. I am sorry to see the word "counter" here as if discussion of law interpretation was a bad thing. I think that the WBFLC should appreciate that there now is a forum of people interested in its work that can provide qualified feedback. Before the existence of BLML we would receive a law book every decade, curse it for still containing lots of unclear laws, and continue to interpret them as we used to, not knowing what people elsewhere did (or what the WBFLC recommended, since we never received anything from the WBFLC - Grattan has now improved on that). The problem that the WBFLC should worry about is the wrong interpretations that take place, not the fact that BLML now makes it possible for the WBFLC to hear about those wrong interpretations and do something about them. Otherwise I agree: WBFLC has a plain duty to participate and sometimes provide an authoritative statement. And if you do that (or make clearer laws), it will to some degree "counter" discussion by making discussion unnecessary. You will then find that even when you have provided an authoritative statement, we will often still discuss the matter and perhaps criticize the WBFLC interpretation. That is as it should be: we are interested in the subject of law interpretation (which is good, since it is part of our TD job), and naturally wish to discuss possibilities and possible improvements. Sometimes the WBFLC's authoritative interpretations themselves need to be interpretated: that is the job of the NBO and/or TDs, and BLML is a good place to discuss that. I believe that the WBFLC participation in BLML is good for BLML. I also believe that BLML is (or will be) good for the WBFLC and for the laws. I realize that the existence of BLML creates a lot of work for the WBFLC: that is, however, not because BLML makes the work necessary, but because BLML shows it to be necessary - before the WBFLC participation in BLML, the WBFLC was simply too far away from its "customers". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 03:27:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:27:29 +1100 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 DAA17347 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:27:21 +1100 Received: from ip60.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.60]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981025163105.NQPC2535.fep4@ip60.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:31:05 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:31:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36333b3c.2025352@post12.tele.dk> References: <001c01bdff8f$d4de8140$fc3463c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <001c01bdff8f$d4de8140$fc3463c3@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, 24 Oct 1998 21:49:43 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >[new wording repeated for convenience] > >New L64B > >Unless L64A applies, then when a revoke is >established, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. If >the offending side won more than one of the revoke trick and all >subsequent tricks, then an additional trick is transferred to the >non-offending side if: > >The revoke card won the revoke trick; or >The revoker won a trick with a card that he could legally have played >to the revoke trick. > > >Thanks, Jesper. I had thought that if dummy were "the revoker", one >would not need to use the part of the Law that prescribes a penalty, >since one would already have read the "No Penalty Assessed" part of >the Law.=20 I'm not worried about dummy as revoker, but by dummy as the winner of a subsequent trick. >So, I am not sure what improvement you would like to see - >but if you could explain further, I will give it some thought. It is probably no problem in practice, but when we do try to express ourselves in ways that will not be misunderstood we might as well go to extremes: The sentence: >The revoker won a trick with a card that he could legally have played >to the revoke trick. just might be misinterpreted as covering the following situation: Declarer revokes; dummy later wins a trick with a card that dummy might legally have played to the revoke trick instead of the (also legal) card that was played from dummy to the revoke trick. One way of stopping that misreading would be to a few words at the end of the sentence: "The revoker won a trick with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick in place of the revoke card." Or, probably easier to understand, a sentence that simply says "For the purposes of this law, dummy and declarer are considered two separate players." >Also: words in my new L64B =3D 70. Words in the current L64A =3D 120. = The >world's timber forests are safe once more! Interesting. As you can see, I hadn't counted. The important point seems to be that making L64 understandable requires starting at the point of "how many of the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks did the offending side take", and only afterwards getting to the "who won specific tricks" stage. The wording that David S quoted from "Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified" is also excellent, except that it can, at least theoretically, be misunderstood in exactly the same way: >NO Did the OFFENDER (not his Partner) win a subsequent trick with a >card that could have been legally* played to the revoke trick? I'd suggest a small addition: NO Did the OFFENDER (not his Partner, and not dummy) win a subsequent trick with a card that could have been legally* played to the revoke trick? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 03:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:52:14 +1100 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 DAA17411 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:52:08 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-138.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.138]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA8801240 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:57:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36334AA0.D8B69440@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:58:24 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? 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 LAA8801240 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The law book defines what the order of played cards means. The laws dictate what to do when players act out of order. These acts are part of the mechanics of the game. These acts are the result of each individual's thought processes and it is the order of the cards that speak to the meaning of the cards played. The purpose of contest is to discover the player who can garner the best score based on what he does by playing within the laws. The order with which the cards are played is not only critical to the game, it is the essence of the game. This is because every card played contains information which is used by the players to unlock the puzzle of each hand. A play out of turn breaks the chain of information used to unlock the puzzle, but it is itself a part of the chain. To unnaturally change the order that the cards are in fact played based on supposed mind reading is to destroy the very essence of the game. The laws provide for adjudicating irregularities.=20 To choose to apply the laws so as to destroy the essence of the hand played is to destroy the hand itself. As in every hand, for the hand which brought this discussion about, the fall of the cards is paramount. First, declarer broke the rules. He made a mental error. Mental errors are part of the game and opponents are entitled to gain from them, within the rules. Declarer had turned his card to the previous trick. He was ready to play to the next trick. He played a card. Ruling declarer's irregular card to be an exposed card, deprives the opponents the opportunity to maximize their score by the fall of the cards, albeit, an opponent's error. All this from mind reading, no less. The fall of the cards say that declarer's play is a lead, albeit, a LOOT. It further says that LHO's play accepts the LOOT. Is the matter of the irregularity settled yet? Not necessarily. Was it not East's proper turn to lead? L53C provides that E can choose to lead, and by doing so, cancels the other plays without penalty=85 Grattan wrote: -s- > ++++ Leading does involve a purposeful act; the Director is required > to determine whether a card is led. This one is not a lead.++++ >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D\x/=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 07:06:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:06:34 +1100 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 HAA17762 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:06:28 +1100 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 PAA18607; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA16220; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:10:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:10:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810252010.PAA16220@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Re: clear rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > If the > matchpointing had been across-the-field, then ranking for each > session would automatically have been across-the-field too. "Automatically?" I think not! Each result on each board is assigned a matchpoint score based on one or more sections, but you can rank within any group you choose: all pairs, all EW pairs, all strat C EW pairs, or whatever. I am virtually certain that in ACBL stratified games, ranking is done _both_ by section and across the field in each strat. Thus the C pairs are awarded masterpoints for "best score by a strat C pair sitting EW in Section A" and also for "best strat C score in the field." I think your real objection is that there were only two pairs in a ranking group. > Two sections at a time sounds reasonable, except maybe to the pair > who lose by 1/2 matchpoint because they sat in the wrong pair of > sections. The point is that this is _much_ rarer than losing because you sat in the wrong section where matchpointing is done by section instead of across two. It can still happen, of course. > section, you might as well do them all. The computer doesn't mind. Sure, if it is just as easy, it is better. I understood there was a practical problem with data entry, but maybe that's no longer the case. (Previous ACBL practice was to score two sections per computer and do the overalls by hand at the end. In principle, it is possible to network computers and score everything at once, but I don't know whether it is yet easy. No doubt it will be routine some day.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 07:52:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:52:47 +1100 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 HAA17864 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:52:40 +1100 Received: from deroover (pool03-194-7-14-182.uunet.be [194.7.14.182]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA25148 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:56:28 +0100 (CET) From: "Nico De Roover" To: "BLML" Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:55:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01be0059$c5625dc0$LocalHost@deroover> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, I am Nico De Roover, Belgian TD. As you all, I am very interested in all mathers of bridge laws. Hope to see a lot of interesting cases, yours faithfully, Nico From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 12:29:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:29:39 +1100 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 MAA18514 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:29:31 +1100 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 TAA04762; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:47:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981025203050.007ab140@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:30:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Cc: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about alert procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls which are not natural. I believe this to be similar (but not identical) to the EBU alert procedure. How close is it? Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both natural and conventional. Does it require an alert in EBU events? It seems that natural and artificial are opposites. Is there a term (aside from non-conventional) to describe the opposite of conventional? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 13:00:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:00:01 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f244.hotmail.com [207.82.251.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18570 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:59:55 +1100 Received: (qmail 26355 invoked by uid 0); 26 Oct 1998 02:03:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19981026020313.26354.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.183 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:03:11 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.183] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules (now movement sizes, I think) Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:03:11 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Irwin J Kostal wrote [spacing changed due to excess of >>]: >> >> Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the >>economics of the situation, and the fact that most players do >>NOT like to play in small fields. If we had (say) three >>sections, with the split 7-4-4, then the B and C players would >>be segregated in a 12 table sections, playing a three board >>movement, and the A players would probably be in two sections, >>with three board movements. It turns out players strongly >>prefer a two board movement. >> Actually, I'd expect one or two pairs in each of B and C to "play up" if the game was flighted. Not many, I will admit, but even some C players would rather not play against the C field. The big selling point, however, (or at least the one I remember from the ACBL Bulletin a few times) is that C players are on a "win, place, or show" ticket - if they rank in the overalls, they get that award, but if they don't, they can score for beating only "their peers". >"strongly prefer" is the sort of statement that does not cut wood. >Players strongly prefer what they are used to. >In Antwerp, players strongly prefer a four-board movement, >because they don't have to move as many times, except in my club, >where they strongly prefer a three-board movement because they meet >ten opponents. > Interesting - I've never heard anything about what people prefer - we're just herded into 14-18 table sections, and off we go. Personally, I *hate* two-board movements, especially as E-W, simply because either I'm opening every second hand until the break, then being 4th-3rd the rest of the night, or the other way around. I find it incredibly monotonous. Also, the longer I can play against someone, the better I can understand what they're playing - it goes against my grain to be in "hi - bye" mode all night. If I never have to play another two-board movement again, it'll be just fine by me. I do understand the idea of "playing in small fields", but scoring across-the-field manages that out a little. Of course, winning a 16-table section is worth more monsterpoints than winning a 10-table section, if you don't get aggregate ranking. Maybe that's why. Jesper Dybdal here: >> > Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, >> > but I cannot understand why players would want to play >> > competitive bridge in this way. >> > -- >I second that opinion. > >Either you play all-against-all, and you will get clobbered, or >you play in separate groups. > I've already gone there with my previous post. I won't do it again; after all, many others have gone there before me. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 13:22:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:22:55 +1100 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 NAA18632 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:22:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXcMZ-0001uG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:26:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:32:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? In-Reply-To: <001801bdffcc$7e3118c0$972e63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >There is no >practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a >bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I >have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing >list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the >Laws themselves. I have asked a question because someone has written to me asking it. This is the third posting of this type that has resulted. If people do not like BLML there is nothing that says they have to post here - or even read here. OK, I disagree with David's reading of the situation. Why not? Why does that mean he has to argue in this way? Are we not allowed to argue the matter? Or am I meant to say to my correspondent "Some people on BLML think the question should not be debated."? I shall answer no more of this type of post on this subject, however well answered otherwise. In my view, I do more good than harm by answering questions that others have asked, and to say things like the bit quoted because you disagree with me is hardly an acceptable way of suggesting my arguments are wrong. I believe BLML serves a useful purpose. I suggest that people who do not believe such might avoid reading BLML. Looking back, I have been offensive myself on four occasions when confronted with these type of posts. I suppose I am prolonging such things, and I intend this to be the last one. In future I intend to leave such posts unanswered, what ever good points they make otherwise. One of the saddest things is that the people who have decided to argue in this way over the last three months are all people who can argue a case excellently. May I suggest in future you do so and not resort to other tactics? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 13:29:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:29:11 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f171.hotmail.com [207.82.251.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18649 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:29:05 +1100 Received: (qmail 15447 invoked by uid 0); 26 Oct 1998 02:32:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19981026023220.15446.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.183 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:32:19 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.183] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:32:19 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> If the >> matchpointing had been across-the-field, then ranking for each >> session would automatically have been across-the-field too. > >"Automatically?" I think not! > I agree. In fact, I expect that with ACBLscore, from looking at the printouts, the default would be each board scored across-the- field, and each section getting their own results, rankings, monsterpoints and all. >Each result on each board is assigned a matchpoint score based on one >or more sections, but you can rank within any group you choose: all >pairs, all EW pairs, all strat C EW pairs, or whatever. > >I am virtually certain that in ACBL stratified games, ranking is done >_both_ by section and across the field in each strat. Thus the C >pairs are awarded masterpoints for "best score by a strat C pair >sitting EW in Section A" and also for "best strat C score in the >field." > Yes - though they don't do two seperate board calculations (typically) - which leads to the "If we had the exact same card in section J, we would have been at 52% instead of the 48% we got." Which is why "across-the field" in the first place, especially if we are going to lump different sections together for overalls. >I think your real objection is that there were only two pairs in a >ranking group. > Oh, and the masterpoint result is so high. But we've all got our "How could this be worth so many masterpoint" story, don't we? My favourite is the 7.5 odd GOLD that my friends one year got in the "Canadian University Team Championships" for beating exactly one team (they were 2nd of three, if I recall). There's a reason I occasionally misspell masterpoints. >> Two sections at a time sounds reasonable, except maybe to the pair >> who lose by 1/2 matchpoint because they sat in the wrong pair of >> sections. > The statistics have been done on this one. IIRC, they say that your feeling is correct to a high degree of tolerance :-). >> section, you might as well do them all. The computer doesn't mind. > >Sure, if it is just as easy, it is better. There is a problem with the final masterpoint score (not the percentage score) not making sense to the players. 216, 108, et al are common numbers we all get used to in one section games. 494 (average score for 26 boards in 3 sections of 13 playings) is not. But we'll soon get over that...I believe, like a lot of things wrong with bridge (anywhere), the answer to "why do we still not do it this way?" is "Inertia." Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 14:02:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:02:16 +1100 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA18716 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:02:12 +1100 Received: from xoigoynt (p48-max51.akl.ihug.co.nz [202.36.95.176]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA20536 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:06:00 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981026160420.007988f0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:04:20 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim wrote: There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about alert procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls which are not natural. I believe this to be similar (but not identical) to the EBU alert procedure. How close is it? Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both natural and conventional. Does it require an alert in EBU events? It seems that natural and artificial are opposites. Is there a term (aside from non-conventional) to describe the opposite of conventional? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that the Roman Jump overcall is quite clearly conventional as it has a very specific relationship to another suit other than the one bid. A similar and more common example would be a Cappeletti 2H or 2S overcall of 1NT which shows the suit bid plus a 5 card minor (or as some here play it, a 4 card minor) In New Zealand our regulations are quite clear that a call such as this where the meaning of the bid has a direct relationship to a suit or suits other than the one bid must be alerted. Patrick Carter Director, Auckland Bridge Club Chairman, NZCBA Laws & Ethics From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 15:01:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:01:31 +1100 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA18920 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:01:25 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5LHHa29193; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:03:17 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:03:17 EST To: timg@maine.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Brian@meadows.pair.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures 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, << Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both natural and conventional. Does it require an alert in EBU events? >> I really don't care how "natural" this convention may seem - I use it and I Alert whether playing online or ftf and irrespective of what level or location of play. It is so different from one might expect of the bid that folks simply need to know what it means. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 18:44:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:21 +1100 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 SAA19304 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:15 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:47:57 -0800 Message-ID: <363429D3.A2EC8957@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:50:43 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: clear rules References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> <36322B1D.9F544A5C@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics > of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in > small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, > then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, > playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in > two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly > prefer a two board movement. I frankly beleive this is total nonsense, and will continue to so beleive until you provide some supporting evidence to prove this assertion. >From my experience strong, serious, players would rather play 4 boards each against 7 of their peers, than 2 each against 14 pairs of wildly differing strength. Come to think of it, many would even prefer 7 boards each against 4 of their peers, if that would result in better, fairer, competitive bridge. Dissenting opinions I dismiss as ACBL marketing of their "schmoints". Nothing wrong in that, as long as one calls a spade a spade! :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 19:18:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:18:22 +1100 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 TAA19353 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:18:17 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:22:05 -0800 Message-ID: <363431D3.E5525384@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:24:51 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19981025203050.007ab140@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > Hi, > > There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about alert > procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls which are > not natural. I presented, on rgbo, a procedure that would be fair to all regardless of origin and, most importantly, supersimple to apply. It goes something like: "(Self-) alert (1) ALL artificial calls and (2) ALL natural calls with a special, pre-agreed meaning". Of course one can argue abt the interpretation of "special", but I meant it to be what you might also describe as "conventional but natural". I believe the whole discussion can be made easier if one thinks in terms of natural vs artificial rather than natural vs conventional. An artificial call is always conventional but a natural call can be either/or. > > Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts > and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both > natural and conventional. Accordingly, this would be alerted under no (2), and there would be no contradiction in that whatsoever. > It seems that natural and artificial are opposites. Indeed. > Is there a term (aside > from non-conventional) to describe the opposite of conventional? I don't think one is neccessary for our purposes. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 19:41:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:41:24 +1100 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 TAA19377 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:41:07 +1100 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 KAA02398 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:35:45 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <003f01be00ba$d4c5c340$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:30:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! Vitold wrote: >>I would like to distribute possibilities of the Laws: L12C2 - for >>reaching the local equity, then L12C3 - following correction for >>reaching the integral equity, with possible non-balance adjusted >>score (because integral equity often will be different for opposing >>lines). And it is TD's authority (under the current Laws) to protect >>field - even via starting the appeal procedure. Steve commented: >This is an interesting idea, and I don't think I have seen it suggested >before. Would anyone else like to comment on it? >(Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion on this. Yet!) Let's suppose that TD have seen failure to follow suit (in common case - any irregularity) but no one player call attention to it and no one summoning the Director. What must TD do? May be next: L81C6 could be used and TD (L83) starts the appeal procedure. AC (L12C3 for protecting the field ) awards non-balance adjusted score - for NOS as it was in the board, for OS - in order to L64C (in common case - in order to do equity). In team play AC has no problem with protecting the field and there are no adjusted score. Why not? Summoning the Director is not normal in other sports and it is one more different between bridge and another sport game. Steve describes this situation in ice hockey in his first letter of clear rules. Well, do anyone thinks that during the life of all our cats (and dogs, of course) we: - must re-write rules supposing that there will be one Director for one table?; - must re-write rules supposing that TD must notice all irregularity?; - must re-write rules supposing that TD must call attention to irregularity and correct it during the play? So, it will be another bridge, but may be it will be clear sport rules? Thank you for attention Sergey Kapustin svk@int.kiev.ua From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 20:08:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:08:03 +1100 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 UAA19453 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:07:56 +1100 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 KAA17095 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:11:41 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810260911.KAA17095@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, 26 Oct 1998 10:12:42 +0000 Subject: Re: Card played from dummy? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear collegues, Thanks for your comments. I've been out of the air for a few days, and it appears that my message was not as clear as I had hoped it to be. So here goes: > Dummy (North), > > s AJ52 > h - > d - > c 10943 > > has made the last trick. >Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". Declarer, of course, is the notorious club-hesitator. In Dutch, cards are almost always indicated by naming the suit first, so "club three", not "three of clubs". "......." was meant to indicate a pause. Both pauses were about 5 seconds. So I would agree that there has been "pause for thought", and rule according to L45B and 45C4a. Herman's ruling: > I would not be so harsh. > "club ....." is an unfinished indication. it must be finished before > the card is played. > "no, spade" is not allowed, but does not finish the indication. I > would hold declarer to club, but would still allow him to choose > which one. This is the one I liked most, although, when South does it again, I'll follow Maddog's ruling according to L46B2 :) Thanks again. JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 20:34:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:34:31 +1100 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 UAA19529 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:34:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXj6G-00041p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:38:09 +0000 Message-ID: <0AjkhWALL+M2EwHz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:47:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981025203050.007ab140@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about alert >procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls which are >not natural. I believe this to be similar (but not identical) to the EBU >alert procedure. How close is it? The basis for alerting in EBU/WBU events is: 5.2.1 You must alert a call if (a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3). (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. We deleted the word "conventional" from this list. Note, however, that we go on to define "natural": 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural (b) a bid of no trumps which you are prepared to play at that level, which is not forcing and which conveys no information about your suit holdings. (c) A pass which does not convey values or specify suit holdings. (d) a double if it is: (i) a take out double of a suit bid naturally at the one, two or three level when your partner has not had a chance to call or has passed without indicating values. (ii) a penalty double otherwise; this includes the double of a suit bid other than naturally to show you hold it. Note: when you pass your partner's take out double to convert it to a penalty double, you are showing values; after this has happened take out doubles are alertable, but penalty doubles are not. (e) a redouble when it shows strength and you are prepared to play in the redoubled contract, but not if it indicates specific suit holdings. >Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts >and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both >natural and conventional. Does it require an alert in EBU events? Under 5.3.1(a) it says something about another suit so it is not natural and thus alertable. We don't worry about conventional [now]. >It seems that natural and artificial are opposites. Is there a term (aside >from non-conventional) to describe the opposite of conventional? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 20:34:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:34:31 +1100 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 UAA19528 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:34:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXj6G-00041o-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:38:10 +0000 Message-ID: <8Qqm1QAuC+M2Ewnq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:38:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Nico In-Reply-To: <01be0059$c5625dc0$LocalHost@deroover> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nico De Roover wrote: >Hello, >I am Nico De Roover, Belgian TD. As you all, I am very interested in all >mathers of bridge laws. Hope to see a lot of interesting cases, Hello Nico, nice to see you, I hope you enjoy it here. No doubt Herman De Wael will explain to you why we need to know whether you have any cats [and dogs!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 22:35:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:35:08 +1100 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 WAA19973 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:35:01 +1100 Received: from default (d16.dial-3.blk.ma.ultra.net [146.115.113.80]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id GAA05420 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 06:38:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36345EDC.272C@ma.ultranet.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 06:37:00 -0500 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: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures References: <0AjkhWALL+M2EwHz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: > > (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any > other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener > rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of 2C > in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural > Question on this end. If I open 1C with JT53 7542 AK AK7 Is the bid considered to be natural or does it require an alert? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 26 23:45:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:45:53 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA20208 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:45:46 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10636 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:49:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:49:33 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: BLML (Was: Re: LOOT? revoke?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >There is no > >practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a > >bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I > >have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing > >list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the > >Laws themselves. > > I have asked a question because someone has written to me asking it. All well and good, although in this particular case my initial reaction was to look at L45E, decide this was trivial (Director decides, table information needed) and ignore the subject. This was so long ago that I've forgotten the details. >From time to time I revisit the thread, because one that goes on so long is presumably not about a trivial matter. But whenever I return, nothing has changed. There are debates about the wording of the Laws. This is fine, but why L45E brings this up is beyond me. Yes, the Laws could have made it such that the director has no decision to make, but that's not relevant. I do not see how L45E can be misinterpreted. The thread has degenerated into a debate as to whether BLML is worthwhile at this point. Some personal beliefs: 1. BLML is worthwhile. Among the noise generated in what is essentially an unmoderated but spam-free newsgroup of parties who are at least interested enough to join up is much information that is of interest and importance to those who a: have practical reason to need interpretations (Directors) b: have an interest in rules and regulations of the game they play (people like me who sometimes bug their sponsoring organization about how the game is run) c: are organizers, and get the occasional insight as to why running a game in way X is theoretically better than way Y. Off-topic subjects (they aren't Laws) but useful stuff anyway. 2. BLML often over-rates its own importance. There have been at least two occasions when it (or a number of its subscribers) has tried to assert that it should be a recognized influence on the WBFLC, and another when it was suggested it should be compulsory reading for Directors. It should be neither. Because some members of the WBFLC are aware of BLML, matters will be raised that might cause the WBFLC to take notice. Fine: anything that is debated here might well be of importance, and at least Grattan filters and presents. I can understand that the WBFLC might well get annoyed at some of the decisions it is asked to make as a result, especially when BLML tried to assert that the WBFLC was not the appropriate body to interpret its own decisions. It might be useful for directors to look at some of the material on the list, but it is very time-consuming to do so. I don't keep statistics, but I now get at least 300 pieces of e-mail a week. This mailing list supplies probably more than half of it. That is enough for me to consider uns*bscribing for that reason alone. If I were a Director (I'm not) there is perhaps 25% of that volume that would be of practical interest, and that information I should be getting from my Sponsoring Organization. Training courses would be a _far_ more productive use of my time (again, assuming I were a director.) David Burn has a reasonable but oversimplified view: the existence of BLML is a clear indication of what is wrong with the game. For most people who play, most of the time there is nothing wrong with the game. As with any other game there are times when an official makes a bad decision. So be it. Because (unlike most other organized sports and games) we do not have an official watching all the time, and we can defer decisions, we can have Appeals Committees. Whether we should, or who should be on them, is a different matter, but the nature of the game is _not_ the same as soccer, golf, or even chess. The way of applying the rules _has_ to be different in a game where communication between team members is required but restricted. Unless ther is an official at every table we are stuck with disagreements on matters of fact and hence appeals. The purpose of BLML (in my view) is a meeting ground not for Lawyers, but for Law professors and students of the law. Inevitably, some of those who are disparagingly known as "Bridge Lawyers" will join in. > [snip] > One of the saddest things is that the people who have decided to argue > in this way over the last three months are all people who can argue a > case excellently. May I suggest in future you do so and not resort to > other tactics? Agreed, but in any debate tempers will rise. Enough rambling. There's the rest of my breakfast to eat! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > -- Richard Lighton |"Visit the poor, by all means, and give them tea and (lighton@idt.net)| barley-water, but don't do it as if you were admin- Wood-Ridge NJ | istering a bowl of deadly nightshade. It upsets them." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 00:16:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:16:41 +1100 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22520 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:16:33 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA00292 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:19:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981026081721.007a56e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:17:21 -0500 To: blml From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <363431D3.E5525384@home.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981025203050.007ab140@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 AM 10/26/98 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >I believe the whole discussion can be made easier if one thinks in terms >of natural vs artificial rather than natural vs conventional. An >artificial call is always conventional but a natural call can be >either/or. What about 1N-2D!-2H, where 2D is a transfer and 2H may be a doubleton? I think by current definition of convention this is not conventional (because it is an offer to play in 2H), but is not natural (thus artificial) because it may be a two-card suit. I think others have brought up the example of raising partner's known-to-be-solid suit with a void or raising a five of a major opening with a stiff ace or king. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 00:54:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:54:32 +1100 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 AAA22681 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:54:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXn9u-0003jB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:58:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:58:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <363429D3.A2EC8957@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Irwin J Kostal wrote: >> >> Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics >> of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in >> small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, >> then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, >> playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in >> two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly >> prefer a two board movement. > >I frankly beleive this is total nonsense, and will continue to so >beleive until you provide some supporting evidence to prove this >assertion. >From my experience strong, serious, players would rather play 4 boards >each against 7 of their peers, than 2 each against 14 pairs of wildly >differing strength. Come to think of it, many would even prefer 7 boards >each against 4 of their peers, if that would result in better, fairer, >competitive bridge. > >Dissenting opinions I dismiss as ACBL marketing of their "schmoints". >Nothing wrong in that, as long as one calls a spade a spade! :-)) It is difficult to provide much evidence of what people want. However, my experience is different from yours. My experience is that amongst good players, various people prefer various things. Some think two-board rounds are best: some don't. Come to think of it, that also applies to every other player as well. The EBU [which does listen to its customers] believes that you should play as many two-board sections as possible in large fields. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 00:54:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:54:32 +1100 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 AAA22680 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:54:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXn9u-0003jD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:58:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:05:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <003f01be00ba$d4c5c340$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >Let's suppose that TD have seen failure to follow suit (in common case - any >irregularity) but no one player call attention to it and no one summoning >the Director. The TD would do well not to be in a position to see such a revoke unless his duties require him to be there. He should not, for example, casually watch bridge being played while he is a TD. So, let us suppose he sees a revoke when he is at the table for some other reason - perhaps to deal with a contested claim. >What must TD do? >May be next: >L81C6 could be used and TD (L83) starts the appeal procedure. L81C6 is correct: he is required to act on the revoke because he has become aware of it. L83 is not: this is a ruling situation, not an appeal situation. He just gives a ruling. > AC (L12C3 for >protecting the field ) awards non-balance adjusted score - for NOS as it was >in the board, for OS - in order to L64C (in common case - in order to do >equity). In team play AC has no problem with protecting the field and there >are no adjusted score. There is no such thing as "protecting the field" where simple rulings are concerned. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 00:59:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:59:10 +1100 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 AAA22729 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:59:03 +1100 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 JAA01751 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:18:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026090336.00696ad4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:03:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:14 PM 10/24/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >And I might say that surely they deserve some kind of >compensation for having to play against all those much stronger >pairs :-) Reading the Bulletin would lead one to conclude that the majority of lower-level ACBL players would prefer to play exclusively in restricted events, running up their master-point ratings as expeditiously as possible without ever having to play against good players. Fortunately for bridge, however, not every new player starting out in competition feels this way. There are some (albeit a minority) who actually believe that they can improve to the point where they themselves are good players, and wish to do so. At one point, flighted games became very popular and nearly replaced open games in serious ACBL competition. That hurt the players who were new and not yet very good, but who understood full well that the only way to become very good was to gain experience against players who had already "arrived". They were faced with a choice of playing only against their peers, forgoing the opportunity to improve their games in tougher competition, or of "playing up" into the Flight A games, forgoing virtually any chance to accumulate master points, while their "peers", who were content to remain poor to mediocre players, racked up the ratings and wound up "acknowledged" as better than them (yes, lesser players do still believe that master points have some meaning, although they may be deluding themselves deliberately). Stratified games resolve this dilemma for this group -- arguably those who are most critically important to the future of the game -- by allowing them to play against the best while being compared, for rating purposes, only against players of ability comparable to their own. >Stratified games sound very strange to me: Is it any fun for a C >player to play against all those A & B players? Certainly, if their definition of "fun" includes getting better, not just winning. >Is it any fun >for an A player to play against all those B & C players? Not so much. From a selfish perspective, I'd much prefer to see games flighted rather than stratified. But if I were starting out today (rather than back at the dawn of time, when virtually all games were open), I'd certainly want stratified games, for the reasons given above. Stratified games aren't for the benefit of the Flight A players; they primarily benefit the potential future Flight A players who aren't there yet. >Is it >reasonable to judge A players on how good they are at getting >tops from inferior players rather than at how well they play >against other A players? >From the point of view of the A players, stratified competition is exactly the same as open competition. While few if any would argue the merits of almost all competition being open (as was the case for the ACBL's first 30 years or so), I think few would consider having some open competition unreasonable. >Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, >but I cannot understand why players would want to play >competitive bridge in this way. On the contrary. Who would want, in a social event played "just for fun", to have to play against much better players and face getting beaten up on hand after hand? It is the players who choose to play competitively rather than socially who, we can assume (or at least hope), want to get better and become more successful in competition. To do that they need to understand (and, I'm happy to say, seem to) that getting beaten up on repeatedly is the price of gaining that level of experience for themselves. Flighted games satisfy the needs of both world-class experts who have already "made it" and LOLs who have no interest in doing so. Stratified games are for the B and C players who aspire to become A players on merit, as opposed to those poor souls who accumulate so many master points at the lower levels that the system insists on treating them as good players when they are not and have no wish to be. 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 Oct 27 01:07:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 01:07:25 +1100 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 BAA22780 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 01:07:19 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-70.uunet.be [194.7.13.70]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA27584 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:11:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36347B9C.7EC9B0D5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:39:40 +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: L25B behind screens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After all the electrons spilt on this topic on BLML, I still got it wrong. Or did I ? I am directing a tournament with screens. North calls me, and points to his 3Cl bid in front of him. East has not yet called. North explains that he realises he should bid 2NT to indicate clubs, as 3Cl will indicate diamonds. East does not want to accept unless I allow it. North asks to change his call. Nothing of this has yet reached the other side. Upon consideration, I think I have 4 courses of action. 1) Disallow the change completely. 2) Allow without problems. 3) Allow with a L25B cap of AV-. 4) Leave the table and go check the FLB (I don't need that) and (more importantly) the regulations. I decide not to do 4), since at this time the other side is still unaware of any problem and I want to keep it so. I know L25B allows the change (and it is clearly in the category of "silly mistake" rather than "change of mind"), but what do the regulations say when behind screens ? So I don't do 1) In choosing between 2) and 3) I decide that 2) will give me the least problems if turning out wrong. I allow the change. I go check the regulations. These date from 1990 (I know, we should have changed them, but we haven't yet - reunion tonight). The regulations state that the penalties from (among others) L23-27 are not of application, with the exception that a player may not "change his mind" if his call was placed purposefully and his bidding card placed on the tray. Clearly these regulations were not yet adapted to the new L25B. One can argue that player did not "change his mind" in the interpretation of L25B, as stated by the WBFLC at Lille. I am now in a second problem. Was my ruling wrong ? I decided to tell the players it was, even if I am not certain. Indeed I should not leave the players under the impression that they could change this. So I told them the correct ruling should have been a L25B one, which means that NOS were not damaged at all, and that I would not impose the cap of AV- since I did not mention it initially. There was no complaint. Morale : check you screen regulations, and adapt them to the new L25B. Do we have a copy of the WBF screen regulations on-line somewhere ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 01:58:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 01:58:41 +1100 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 BAA22944 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 01:58:34 +1100 Received: from modem42.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.170] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zXo9x-0008OH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:02:17 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:01:25 -0000 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. ["We run on little errands for the Ministers of State" - W.S.Gilbert ] =+More than one revoke within the compass of a single trick : I believe these are treated severally (each individually and independently). I assume the total number of tricks tansferred from one side to the other cannot exceed the number of tricks won after the revoke. ~ Grattan ~ += From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 02:16:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:16:31 +1100 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 CAA23157 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:16:25 +1100 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 KAA05661 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:35:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026102055.0069c038@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:20:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <364216c7.13621747@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:05 PM 10/24/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >Miscounting is in general clearly "irrational". I disagree strongly. IMO a play based on a miscount of the hand is exactly the sort of thing that the FLB means by a "play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational". I can't believe that the phrase refers only to things like taking a 50% finesse when a 52% play-for-the-drop is available. Jesper's statement would imply that the vast majority of misplays fall into the category of "irrational" rather than "careless or inferior", which is not the way I read the intent of the law. Declarer claims with the statement, "I'll run the clubs in dummy then try the heart finesse for the overtrick." He fails to realize (as a better player would) that on the run of the clubs, RHO will be show-up squeezed, forced down to one heart. The HK is singleton on his left. Do we award him the overtrick, on the grounds that, as he runs dummy's clubs, it would be "irrational" for him to miscount the opponents' 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 Oct 27 02:18:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:18:22 +1100 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23174 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:18:16 +1100 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25361 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:22:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <363429D3.A2EC8957@home.com> References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> <36322B1D.9F544A5C@idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:32:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: clear rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Irwin J Kostal wrote: >> >> Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics >> of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in >> small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, >> then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, >> playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in >> two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly >> prefer a two board movement. > >I frankly beleive this is total nonsense, and will continue to so >beleive until you provide some supporting evidence to prove this >assertion. Some anecdotal evidence below. >>From my experience strong, serious, players would rather play 4 boards >each against 7 of their peers, than 2 each against 14 pairs of wildly >differing strength. Come to think of it, many would even prefer 7 boards >each against 4 of their peers, if that would result in better, fairer, >competitive bridge. > >Dissenting opinions I dismiss as ACBL marketing of their "schmoints". >Nothing wrong in that, as long as one calls a spade a spade! :-)) But of course, most of the players in any open ACBL event are not "strong, serious players". Our local tournaments have suffered from falling attendance. Traditionally, the Friday evening event has been a Masters/Non-masters pairs, with separate events for the two fields. Maintaining separate fields with the lower turnout has led to holding games with 4,5, and even 6 boards per round, and *many* people are vocally annoyed when this happens. Complaints when the sections are put together and the event is run as a stratified game are much less common and come mostly from the stronger pairs who wish to play in a stronger field (the weaker pairs don't mind playing against the stronger pairs when they only have to play 2 boards against them, but they consider it unfair when they have to play 4 boards against them). I'm sure this is largely the effect of custom. Our local club, which 10 years ago used to average 15+ tables a night, now probably averages about 7 or 8 (about the same number of people are playing, but now there is a competing club). When on occasion the field swells to 13 tables, there are always many comments about how nice it is to play 2-board rounds; my impression is that those comments only come from those who remember the old days. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 02:58:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:58:51 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23255 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:58:45 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA19719; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:01:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.77) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019626; Mon Oct 26 10:01:16 1998 Received: by har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE00CF.F1571940@har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:01:12 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE00CF.F1571940@har-pa2-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jesper Dybdal'" Subject: RE: clear rules Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:59:37 -0500 Encoding: 64 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The fact remains that stratified games are a remarkably successful marketing tool. Sadie Kumquat loves it...she gets to meet all these bridge celebrities (and maybe once in a while even do well on a board against them) and gets lost of wonderful stories to tell when she gets back to East Erewhon, gopher capital of the hemisphere. Yet she still has just as good a chance of winning (or maybe better) lots of those nice master points as if she had stayed home and challanged Mable Snerdley in the regular Monday afternoon club game. If all she were going to do was play the Mable's of the world, she could have stayed home. Stratified games are for the B & C flight players who were staying away from open games in droves because they couldn't win...and often staying home rather than fight each other over less points in the games where they had a chance. The problem is not that some games are stratified...they can be fun. But some should be flighted to allow only the better players or those actively desiring to play up to have a stronger competition. A collateral problem is that of bracketed knockouts, where decent advancing players are denied the opportunity to compete at the top levels. Partial solutions are stratiflighting and allowing playups in KO's, but there is no perfect answer. As far as abandoning stratified games, don't count on it unless and until the more numerous lower flight players who pay the most dues and entry fees tire of it. Craig "Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing" Vince Lombardi ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal[SMTP:jesper@dybdal.dk] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 1998 12:14 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:11:25 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >In a Tucson, Arizona, regional a few weeks ago, there were two C >pairs in my section's E-W field. They tied with 42%, lowest score >in the section. For this achievement, tying for first place in the >C stratum, they each received 1.23 masterpoints. A cynic might say >they tied for last place and deserved nothing. And I might say that surely they deserve some kind of compensation for having to play against all those much stronger pairs :-) Stratified games sound very strange to me: Is it any fun for a C player to play against all those A & B players? Is it any fun for an A player to play against all those B & C players? Is it reasonable to judge A players on how good they are at getting tops from inferior players rather than at how well they play against other A players? Mixing strengths like this is fine in a primarily social event, but I cannot understand why players would want to play competitive bridge in this way. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 03:00:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:00:52 +1100 Received: from mail1.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [195.61.43.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23274 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:00:12 +1100 Received: from bidule2 (portge023.worldcom.ch [194.235.4.23]) by mail1.worldcom.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA03052 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:00:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981026160331.006c5790@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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:03:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: L25B behind screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >Do we have a copy of the WBF screen regulations on-line somewhere ? This is from ------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPENDIX I Screen Procedures The screen is placed diagonally across the table in such fashion=20 that North and East, South and West are screenmates. The board is=20 placed in the middle of a movable tray. The screen is closed so=20 that the bidding tray can just pass under it. The players now remove=20 their cards from the board.=20 Starting with the dealer, players place bidding cards silently on their=20 section of the tray, from the extreme left-hand edge, neatly overlapping=20 so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. A call is=20 considered to have been made when a player releases it onto the tray=20 (but Law=A025 may apply). North and South pass the tray under the screen=20 after their screenmate has called, and the tray should be placed so that=20 all calls are visible on the other side. There shall be no oral=20 communication at the table during the auction period. After the final=20 pass, players remove their bidding cards. At this point, the declaring=20 side may exchange information about their own explanations.=20 The opening lead shall be made face-down. Opening leader's screenmate=20 announces that the lead has been made; a defender raises the screen, and=20 play proceeds. The screen is raised only to a level that permits all=20 players to see all the cards. The International Code of Duplicate Laws=20 is in effect except as specified below:=20 Law=A09A2(b)(1):=20 Dummy may call attention to a defender's card prematurely exposed.=20 Law=A013:=20 The artificial adjusted score and penalty prescribed in the first=20 paragraph apply only if the call has been transmitted to the other=20 side of the screen.=20 Law=A020:=20 A. Review of the Auction:=20 Until the bidding cards are removed from the tray, a player obtains a=20 review of the auction by inspecting them. At trick one, when a player=20 is still entitled to obtain a review and an inspection of the bidding=20 cards is no longer feasible, a player obtains a written review of the=20 auction from his screenmate.=20 B. Explanation of Calls:=20 1. During the Auction:=20 At any time a player may request, in writing, of his screenmate a full=20 explanation of an opponent's call. The reply, also, is in writing.=20 2. During the Play Period:=20 Questions during the play period should be in writing with the=20 aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made=20 in writing.=20 Laws 26 through 32 and Laws 34 through 39:=20 For the infractions covered by these laws, the following procedures=20 are used: A. Tray not Passed:=20 Before the tray is passed, the offender's screenmate shall call=20 attention to the infraction and summon the Director. The Director=20 shall see that the infraction is rectified without penalty. These=20 calls may not be accepted.=20 B. Both Sides at Fault:=20 When the infringing call is nontheless passed across the screen, both=20 sides being at fault (as when either player commits a bidding=20 infraction and the proper player - North or South - moves the tray=20 before rectification), both players on the other side of the screen=20 are responsible for calling attention to the infraction and summoning=20 the Director. The Director shall return the tray to the offending=20 players for rectification of the irregularity without penalty. These=20 calls may not be accepted.=20 C. Only One Side at Fault:=20 When the infringing call is passed across the screen with only one=20 side at fault (the player who committed the bidding infraction - East=20 or West - also moved the tray improperly), both players on the other=20 side of the screen are responsible for calling attention to the=20 infraction and summoning the Director.=20 The Director shall return the tray to the offending player for=20 rectification of the irregularity and the appropriate penalty is=20 applied. These calls may not be accepted.=20 D. Irregularity not Noticed:=20 When the infringing call is passed across the screen, and neither=20 player there draws attention to it, the tray eventually being returned=20 to the side of the screen where the bidding irregularity was committed,=20 the auction stands without penalty or rectification. However, in the=20 case of an inadmissible call, Law=A035 applies.=20 E. Information - Authorised or not:=20 Information from withdrawn calls is unauthorised for any partnership=20 at fault but authorised for a player or partnership that has committed=20 no irregularity.=20 Law=A033:=20 The subsequent call is cancelled without penalty.=20 Law=A040:=20 Alerts:=20 When an alertable call is made, the player alerts his screenmate. When=20 the tray is passed, both players should immediately alert partner's=20 alertable call. Alert Procedure:=20 The alerter is responsible for ensuring that his screenmate is aware of=20 the alert. The recommended procedure is for the alerter to place his=20 Alert card on top of the alertable call, and remove it only when the=20 screenmate acknowledges.=20 Convention Card:=20 A player may refer to his opponent's convention card at any time during=20 the auction.=20 Law=A041A:=20 Opening Lead out of Turn:=20 The offender's screenmate should attempt to prevent any opening lead out=20 of turn. A faced down lead out of turn is retracted without penalty. A=20 faced opening lead out of turn is retracted without penalty if the=20 screen has not been raised. When the screen has been raised after a=20 faced opening lead out of turn - through no fault of the declaring side -=20 a) and the other side has not yet led face up, the lead is considered to=20 be out of turn and Law=A054 applies.=20 b) the other side has also led face up, the card becomes a major penalty=20 card.=20 Law=A073D:=20 During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is=20 proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own=20 call (place the bidding card faced, in front of, but not on the tray)=20 or by waiting before passing the tray.=20 Law=A076:=20 Spectators:=20 Spectators may not sit so they can see both sides of the screen=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yvan Calame =20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 03:23:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:23:56 +1100 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 DAA23358 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:23:46 +1100 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 LAA08996 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:42:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026112821.006ebd70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:28:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <363a51be.7787357@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Any TD who is worth anything, whether he is a full-time professional TD or merely an occasional fill-in-as-needed TD like myself, strives to improve his performance as a TD. While memorizing official pronouncements is one way to do so, one cannot become really good at applying the law unless one understands it. The best way to understand the law is to discuss difficult or marginal cases, and to see (in time) how one's (hopefully improved) understanding of the subtleties of the law leads to making decisions which will be viewed by one's peers and betters as correct. Even I, who live in a large metropolitan area with a very active bridge community, and who counts among my close friends two of the ACBL's top-rated full-time TDs (for whose abilities I have the utmost respect), have only a limited opportunity to do this. The Internet in general, and BLML in particular, give me the chance not only to engage in such discussions frequently and as convenient to my schedule, but with a much wider range of people, from many countries, with a much wider range of opinions, than would otherwise be the case. If this were the only function of BLML, it would still be of great benefit to the wider bridge-playing community, as it would provide a way for their TDs to improve their abilities and performance as TDs, to the good of everyone. I do not see myself as a "bridge lawyer", but rather as a "bridge judge". Both lawyers and judges concern themselves with the minutiae of the law and its interpretation. A lawyer's job is to represent the law in such a way as to achieve a particular outcome of a particular judicial proceeding; a judge's job is to represent the law as fairly and equitably as possible to both sides in such a proceeding. The job of a law-making body is to satisfy a constituency of judges, not a constituency of lawyers. I would assume, or at least hope, that members of the WBFLC or other governing bodies responsible for interpreting the law recognize that the members of BLML represent a cross-section of that constituency, and thereby provide an opportunity for them, by gaining a clearer understanding of where the community of "bridge judges" disagree, to get better at their jobs, even as we get better at ours. I appreciate that some have chosen to take advantage of this opportunity, and hope that others will see fit to do so in the future. I don't see how this can possibly be anything but good for the entire bridge community. BLML would provide a valuable service to its members even if our lawmakers were to choose unanimously to ignore it utterly, but it would be a pity. 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 Oct 27 04:20:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:20:35 +1100 Received: from mailhost.math.auc.dk (root@mailhost.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23560 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:20:28 +1100 Received: from bohr.math.auc.dk (nwp@bohr.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.5]) by mailhost.math.auc.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17228 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:24:13 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nwp@localhost) by bohr.math.auc.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27825; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:24:12 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:24:12 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810261724.SAA27825@bohr.math.auc.dk> From: Niels Wendell Pedersen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25B behind screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan wrote: >Herman wrote: > >>Do we have a copy of the WBF screen regulations on-line somewhere ? > >This is from > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >APPENDIX I >Screen Procedures >[snip] Maybe it's more correct to refer to the 'WBF General Conditions of Contest 1998': http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/wbf-gcoc.html#16 or pages 13-15 in the corresponding pdf file found at: http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/ (under More Law Stuff), but see also http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/wbf-gcoc.html#15 or page 12 in the corresponding pdf file. Niels From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 05:16:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:16:40 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f285.hotmail.com [207.82.251.176]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23717 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:16:35 +1100 Received: (qmail 6045 invoked by uid 0); 26 Oct 1998 18:19:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19981026181953.6044.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 199.166.210.221 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:19:52 PST X-Originating-IP: [199.166.210.221] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:19:52 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Jan Kamras >Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about >>alert procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls >>which are not natural. > >I presented, on rgbo, a procedure that would be fair to all >regardless of origin and, most importantly, supersimple to apply. It >goes something like: > >"(Self-) alert (1) ALL artificial calls and (2) ALL natural calls >with a special, pre-agreed meaning". > Um, how about un-lawyering it, and alerting - and providing immediate (short, to start) explanations for - all calls that would surprise you if you were playing against it, and didn't know the system? And that goes for the "10-15, 5+hearts" "natural" 1H opener in the (somewhat aggressive) Precision system I occasionally play. With self-alerts, and explanations to opponents only, and scripts that can put up comments fairly immediately, I don't see what's wrong with this. It requires honesty, and it requires people to think "what do my opponents need to know?", not "do I have to Alert this?" I believe quite strongly that the only reasons to limit Alerts are to minimize UI transmitted to partner, and limits put on you by your opponents (mostly of the "I know" variety). Self-alerts and private explanations mostly (except for a long delay waiting for LHO of the self-alerter, as a detailed explanation is transmitted) remove the first, and a simple "thx - I know" will remove the second. It's not a question of "what do we have to do?" - our opponents are entitled to a *full and complete* explanation of our system; that's what we have to do. It's a question of "what do our opponents need to know about this auction?" I believe that it is discussions of this variety (trying to use nuances in the Laws to try to get around what the full FLB obviously intends) that are prompting the calls of "haven for bridge lawyers" that we have been getting (I'm willing to be proven wrong here, though). I also think that making more things "what the full FLB obviously intends", perhaps even by making the Preface part of the Laws, would be a good goal for the next revision of the FLB. >> Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show >>hearts and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this >>overcall is both natural and conventional. As far as alerting goes (the question of regulation is different), I believe this question is irrelevant, and shouldn't even occur to the player. It is definately not what you would expect your unknown opponents to mean by (1D)-2H, so e alerts and explains, before being asked, without thinking. I expect I've made myself clear enough, so I'll shut up now. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 05:26:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:26:10 +1100 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 FAA23774 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:26:05 +1100 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 KAA13139 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA15950; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:31:50 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:31:50 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199810261831.KAA15950@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: BLML and the WBFLC Jesper Dybdal, Denmark wrote: |On re-reading Grattan's description (in the "Revoke" thread) of |what BLML has become, I would like to comment on a few specific |points. I skipped the "Revoke" thread (it's been busy around here recently) but ... |On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:49:08 +0100, "Grattan" | wrote: | |>What we learn these days is that the world of BLML has become a bridge |>lawyers' nesting site where they they sit and chatter away about |niceties of |>language; it was ever the wish of lawyers to interpret the law and bridge |>lawyers are no different. No way should it be allowed them. This is simply a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "bridge lawyer." A "bridge lawyer" is someone who tries to use the laws at the table to gain an unfair advantage. That's not what's happening here, although I admit that it's possible that BLML is a fine training ground for bridge lawyers; in fact, I'm sure there's at least one whose at-the-table nonsense will be a lot harder to deal with as a result of his learning from BLML. But just about everyone else is not discussing the laws to gain advantage at the table. This discussion is going on because the participants are interested in the gory details of bridge law for other reasons. Some are directors--- mostly the very few directors who take pride in their job and want to do it better by learning the laws in and out. Some are administrators; they are interested in the law from the point of view that it impacts larger-scale decisions or from the standpoint of suggesting or causing changes in the law to make better contests. Some are players who happen to be fascinated with the complexity of bridge law and bridge itself. None of those people are bridge lawyers, though they might be very good ones should they choose to perform that behavior. AT THE TABLE. |>But on the |>other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by |>pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. Every 7 years or so. It's not at all clear that the WBFLC has the authority to rule on cases between Laws revisions. According to Law 93, a "national authority" may be the final source of such authority in the case of an appeal. Nothing is mentioned about the WBFLC. Five years ago, it'd've been ludicrous even to consider that the WBFLC could possibly be the final authority in matters of bridge law; the technology for their doing it did not exist. There's no reason why the WBFLC *can't* state their view on the laws, but I don't see how they have any authority between printings. I think it's a good idea, though, that an official representative of the WBFLC participates in BLML; he can say, "we intended this wording to mean thus-and-such." If the participants in BLML demonstrate that a better interpretation exists, perhaps the representative will take notes and see to it that the laws are improved next time. ...either to change the wording to manifest clearly the WBFLC's intent or simply to choose the right interpretation. In other words, the WBFLC isn't necessarily right. They made a choice once. If they had the resources that BLML has (dozens of educated intelligent people thinking about many sides of an issue for extended periods of time), the laws would be far better than they are. If I were on the WBFLC, I'd consider BLML a godsend, free money. Suddenly, I have a great deal of intelligent discussion to save for the law making meetings. Essentially, it's lots of ideas written up *off-line*, away from the meetings. This is not to say that the conclusions formed on BLML are necessarily right. Sometimes even the most illustrious members of this group are up a tree and don't get shot down. But the ideas that arise have to be valuable. To dismiss this discussion as bridge lawyering and nothing more is at least misunderstanding what's going on. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 05:28:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:28:56 +1100 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 FAA23800 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:28:47 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-40.access.net.il [192.117.149.40] (may be forged)) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA24808; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:32:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3634C030.40144331@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:32:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michael amos CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: L25B, what else? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Michael It is very difficult ( and in my opinion not moral !!!) to compel a cat to play against inferior opponents , as are the human beings .......... Cheers Dany michael amos wrote: > > In message <5738320921101998/A03262/EXPERT/11CAAA602400*@MHS>, KOOYMAN > writes > > boring bridge stuff snipped > > > >I would be amazed if Claude has (a) cat(s). A good TD doesn't have cats, no > >time for it. Which means that he can't have (a) dog(s) either. Free mice, may > >be, to keep his house clean. > > > > > ton is clearly a man after my own heart - banish dogs and cats from the > bridge room and blml - (didn't the ebu have a rule about dogs - aimed if > i've got the story right at a pretty recent world champion :)) > > in my experience no one has ever brought a cat to a bridge tournament - > but no doubt someone knows better - if so please tell > rec.cats.at.bridge.tournaments ! > >ton > > > mike > > -- > michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 05:29:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:29:10 +1100 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 FAA23809 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:29:03 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-40.access.net.il [192.117.149.40] (may be forged)) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA24868; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:32:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3634C042.DB7D1BC8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:32:34 +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: Law 81C8 (was LOOT? Revoke?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had never to use the quoted part of L50...... I don't know what was the promulgators' intention . maybe Sir Grattan or any member of the WBFLC will inform us ??? Dany David Burn wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > L50 says "...unless the Director designates otherwise." But L49 > doesn't seem to offer any options. There are specific circumstances > where the card does not become a penalty card, but otherwise it does. > I read L50 as saying the TD is to rule whether any of the L49 circumstances applies or not; not as giving the TD discretion. > > [DALB] > > Interesting. I had thought that the purpose of L50 was to give the TD discretion to say: "In normal circumstances, that would be a penalty card, but given the special circumstances in which you have exposed it, I will not so designate it." The case in point, where West exposes a card because he is following to South's card payed in error, appears to me an obvious example of where such discretion may be needed and could sensibly be applied. > > If the Laws had not meant to give discretion to the TD in L50 to override the general provision of L49, then it seems to me that there would be no need at all for the exception clause in L50 (or indeed for the first sentence of L50 at all). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:07:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:07:26 +1100 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 HAA24063 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:07:17 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-146.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.146]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA9558056 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:12:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3634C9E0.6918D31D@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:13:36 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: BLML (Was: Re: LOOT? revoke?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard, Your post is a refreshing respite and has so many worthy points I thought I would let you know that I think so. As I have probably perpetuated one of the subject threads I agree that it has resulted in so much noise that the true messages do not come through. I am now recognizing this and since I can think of nothing further to add until my posts have been responded to I believe that I will not address the thread any more even though I feel that the prevailing opinion is directly counter to mine. For instance, Grattan feels that there is no new trick yet so therefore, the exposed card is to be treated as an exposed card. David Burn feels that there is no new trick so there can't be a lead to a new trick. Initially, I forced myself to conform my thinking to their interpretation. Yet, I could not find sound logic in their interpretation and this spurred me on to attempt to work out the essence of the situation and draw my conclusion from that. My conclusion is that the prevailing interpretation is based on an incorrect premise or premises and that until those premises are altered, their interpretations will never change. I think I have discovered their faulty premises, and have developed and posted convincing arguments for revising them [even though it has been a fractured process]. However, I suspect that they feel their premises are so unassailable and feel that my arguments are so trivial that they do not want to waste time responding to them. The reason I have persisted so much on this topic is that the matter is not inconsequential, and, is in fact of the greatest importance as it speaks to the essence of Bridge. Namely, is the order that the cards are play all important and when a player breaks a rule with respect to the order which the cards are played, should the score be affected? I say yes. Grattan and David Burn say no. Your post indicates that you say no as well. It is well that you call it like you see it. In my own muddled way I have learned much in this thread during my hunt for truth. Most of it has to do with several subtle points written into the laws of which I was not aware. I have little expectation that the interpretation that I offer will dislodge immovable objects except that I have examined thoroughly everything I can find, can find no flaws in my thinking, can see the reasonableness of others, recognize many of their flaws, and draw a consistent conclusion which is uniformly fair to all contestants. Perhaps I have spurred you on to again examine the seed that spawned the issue that brought you to compose your timely post. Perhaps not. In any event, thanks for speaking. Roger Pewick Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >There is no > > >practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a > > >bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I > > >have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing > > >list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the > > >Laws themselves. > > > > I have asked a question because someone has written to me asking it. > > All well and good, although in this particular case my initial > reaction was to look at L45E, decide this was trivial (Director > decides, table information needed) and ignore the subject. This > was so long ago that I've forgotten the details. > > >From time to time I revisit the thread, because one that goes > on so long is presumably not about a trivial matter. But whenever > I return, nothing has changed. There are debates about the wording > of the Laws. This is fine, but why L45E brings this up is beyond me. > Yes, the Laws could have made it such that the director has no > decision to make, but that's not relevant. I do not see how L45E > can be misinterpreted. > > The thread has degenerated into a debate as to whether BLML is > worthwhile at this point. Some personal beliefs: -snip good stuff- > It might be useful for directors to look at some of the material > on the list, but it is very time-consuming to do so. I don't keep > statistics, but I now get at least 300 pieces of e-mail a week. -snip good stuff- > The purpose of BLML (in my view) is a meeting ground not for Lawyers, > but for Law professors and students of the law. Inevitably, some of > those who are disparagingly known as "Bridge Lawyers" will join in. > > > [snip] > > > One of the saddest things is that the people who have decided to argue > > in this way over the last three months are all people who can argue a > > case excellently. May I suggest in future you do so and not resort to > > other tactics? > > Agreed, but in any debate tempers will rise. > > Enough rambling. There's the rest of my breakfast to eat! > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Richard Lighton |"Visit the poor, by all means, and give them tea and From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:16:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:16:59 +1100 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24122 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:16:47 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA14147 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:19:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981026151941.007c3420@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:19:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <19981026181953.6044.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 10/26/98 PST, Michael Farebrother wrote: >I believe that it is discussions >of this variety (trying to use nuances in the Laws to try to get >around what the full FLB obviously intends) I think you're off base. I am not trying to "get around" anything. There are regulations, and there are going to be more with the advent of a set of Laws for online bridge. It is not enough to say "alert what should be alerted." There must be better guidelines. These Laws will probably have input from a greater variety of sources than any previous set of bridge Laws. Before these guidelines are established, it seems to me that there ought to be clear definitions of terms like conventional, natural and artificial. I'm just trying to get an understanding of how those terms are currently defined. Anyway, I must have worded my original post wrong. Let me try again: Is a bid, such as a Roman jump overcall, which shows the suit bid plus some other suit natural? Where did the definition you used to answer the previous question come from? Most definitions of natural which I have come across use as a criteria length in the suit bid. But, those definitions probably all come from alert charts. >From 1971 Encyclopedia of Bridge: NATURAL BIDS. Bids which reflect the character of the hand and suggest a possible final denomination for the partnership. A natural bid is contrasted with ARTIFICIAL BID. However, some bids which have artificial meanings can be used as natural bids. ARTIFICIAL BID. An arbitrary call which can be correctly interpreted by partner only if agreement has been reached about its meaning in advance. ... At the extrame of artificiality are "cipher" bids which bear no relation to the suit named, or to any other suit. The commonest examples are the STAYMAN responses of two clubs and three clubs over one no trump and two no trup respectively, and the responses to Blackwood. ... Cipher bids are common also in the Italian systems, which abound with semi-artificial bids. Examples of this in the ROMAN SYSTEM are the opening one-bid which will frequently be a three-card suit; the opening bid of two in a major suit which announces a secondary suit of clubs; and a jump overcall of an opponent's opening which shows a particular two-suited hand. Semi-artificial bids in use among standard bidders are TEXAS and other transfer bids, and the UNUSUAL NO TRUMP. By these definitions a Roman Jump Overcall is semi-artificial (sounds sort of like being semi-pregnant) and natural. The definition of natural certainly allows for the possibility of a bid being both natural and artificial. So, perhaps my presumption that natural and artificial are opposites is incorrect. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:38:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:38:55 +1100 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 HAA24197 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:38:49 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:42:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3634DF5B.C5FDE69@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:45:15 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19981025203050.007ab140@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981026081721.007a56e0@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > What about 1N-2D!-2H, where 2D is a transfer and 2H may be a doubleton? I > think by current definition of convention this is not conventional (because > it is an offer to play in 2H), but is not natural (thus artificial) because > it may be a two-card suit. I beleive you're mixing things up, and that's the cause for problems. I think you refer to a definition of "convention" used to apply L40D, whereas we were talking abt OKB alert-rules. And by the way, it is *responder* who suggests to play in hearts, not opener, so for alert-purposes it seems obvious that the 2H bid is "artificial" since it might be opener's shortest suit. Furthermore, responses to a call that was already a convention are almost always conventional, and if by coincidence a response to a convention happens to be in a suit naturally bid by that player, this doesn't make the response "natural". Take: 1H - 3H - 4C* - 4NT*- 5H which shows e.g. 2 Keycards w/o HQ, it just happens to *look* like a natural bid. > I think others have brought up the example of > raising partner's known-to-be-solid suit with a void or raising a five of a > major opening with a stiff ace or king. Again, you are just reacting to a convention used by partner. It was partner who suggested playing that suit, not you. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:51:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:51:55 +1100 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 HAA24262 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:51:49 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA19665 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:55:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019625; Mon Oct 26 14:54:32 1998 Received: by har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE00F8.EFC05000@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:54:38 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE00F8.EFC05000@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Card played from dummy? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:53:09 -0500 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "no, wait" could be thought...or the realisation that declarer has misspoken. He may indeed have been thinking "a spade is better, I don't want to play a club" just before saying "club...no wait". The intent could be clear to the table that there was no "pause for thought" = corrected in same breath in the old law. Once again the TD must determine what really happened if possible and not resort to mechanical solutions. Just because he was thinking of clubs, and misspoke does not mean he wanted to play one. What if he had said " 'Arf a pint...no wait..a spade". Surely you won't make him play his lager. Regards, Craig ---------- From: John (MadDog) Probst[SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] writes >Dummy (North), > >s AJ52 >h - >d - >c 10943 > >has made the last trick. >Declarer: "club........ , no, wait, .........play the spade ace". >East: "Director!" > >Does South have to play a club? If so, according to which Law? > L45C4b A player may without penalty change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought. ... ... no, wait ... *is* thought. "club" is played L45B Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, ... L46B2 If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. The C3 *is* the played card. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:54:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:54:54 +1100 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 HAA24279 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:54:47 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h13.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA05566; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:58:26 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36358B5A.112F@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:59:06 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: BLML (Was: Re: LOOT? revoke?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Richard:) Thanks for nice post Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 07:56:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:56:48 +1100 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 HAA24294 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:56:41 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-152.access.net.il [192.116.198.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA23874 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:00:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3634E2D8.EF99ABDA@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:00:09 +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: clear rules - or clear threads ??? References: <19981026020313.26354.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk well folks I read the whole .... but I understand that now the subject is stratified games. So , for clarity and charity !!!!!..... please start a new thread . Anyway - I accept many of Vitold's ideas , but even those idea should be considered through the prism of one of the most important rule - LAW 99 !!!!! please use your brains dear TDs ! Dany Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > >Irwin J Kostal wrote [spacing changed due to excess of >>]: > >> > >> Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the > >>economics of the situation, and the fact that most players do > >>NOT like to play in small fields. If we had (say) three > >>sections, with the split 7-4-4, then the B and C players would >Either you play all-against-all, and you will get clobbered, or > >you play in separate groups. > > > I've already gone there with my previous post. I won't do it again; > after all, many others have gone there before me. > > Michael. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 08:38:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:38:23 +1100 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 IAA24375 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:38:18 +1100 Received: from ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.33]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981026214205.QJSC2535.fep4@ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:42:05 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:42:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3636ea0d.2253520@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981026090336.00696ad4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981026090336.00696ad4@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, 26 Oct 1998 09:03:36 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:14 PM 10/24/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >>Stratified games sound very strange to me: Is it any fun for a C >>player to play against all those A & B players? > >Certainly, if their definition of "fun" includes getting better, not = just >winning. It is certainly fun to play against somewhat better opponents, but I would have thought that the difference from A to C was too large for that purpose. Of course, if good players are put into C because they haven't played very long and therefore have few masterpoints, I can understand them wanting to play against A players. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 08:38:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:38:13 +1100 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 IAA24368 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:38:08 +1100 Received: from ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.33]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981026214153.QJRX2535.fep4@ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:41:53 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:41:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3635e7e4.1700585@post12.tele.dk> References: <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199810232343.TAA14965@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981026102055.0069c038@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981026102055.0069c038@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, 26 Oct 1998 10:20:55 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:05 PM 10/24/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>Miscounting is in general clearly "irrational". > >I disagree strongly.=20 I was taking about miscounting the number of tricks available from the top, which was the context of the discussion, but I obviously did not make that clear enough. What I attempted to say was this: If I claim 9 tricks in 3N without stating a line of play, the TD should consider it "irrational" for me to lose count of the number of top tricks I have, _except_ when he has reason to believe that I already have lost count of them (as was the case here). Miscounting the opponents' hands is certainly not irrational! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 11:05:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:05:50 +1100 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 LAA24908 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:05:35 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXwhO-0005aU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:42:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <36345EDC.272C@ma.ultranet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36345EDC.272C@ma.ultranet.com>, richard willey writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: >> >> (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any >> other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener >> rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of 2C >> in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural >> > >Question on this end. >If I open 1C with > >JT53 >7542 >AK >AK7 > >Is the bid considered to be natural or does it require an alert? > >Richard If, in you partnership, your partner has opened a minor on 3 cards, ceratinly more than once then under UK alerting regs you'd better alert it. "Alert". "Occasionally 3, with unbiddable 4 card suits". If damage were caused (which is difficult to envisage) I would certainly adjust if it was a habit and unalerted. personally, dinosaur-like I will open 1H, I have four of the brutes and no rebid problem, but there are many who don't. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 11:05:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:05:40 +1100 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 LAA24909 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:05:35 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zXwhO-00036g-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:32:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: LOOT? revoke? 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 Burn wrote: > >>There is no >>practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a >>bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I >>have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing >>list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the >>Laws themselves. > > I have asked a question because someone has written to me asking it. >This is the third posting of this type that has resulted. If people do >not like BLML there is nothing that says they have to post here - or >even read here. snip > > I believe BLML serves a useful purpose. I suggest that people who do >not believe such might avoid reading BLML. > snip The parallel analogy is that if Law is so clear we wouldn't need advocates. Bollox. blml is the forum where we all argue our corner, where we are free to advocate our case, where we seek to persuade others that our position has merit. The fact that DWS and Jesper appear endlessly to be locked in mortal combat or that Henk insists on a position which the whole of the rest of the known universe deems precedes "big bang", or indeed that I've opened the FLB is what makes blml so interesting. I would challenge any reader or poster of this group to say truthfully "I learn nothing from blml" and believe it. Read blml. Argue with blml. Don't pretend you must be right though. This is a forum for opinion. In my opinion the Laws are not always clear. 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 Oct 27 13:17:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:17:04 +1100 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 NAA25213 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:17:00 +1100 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p58.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.210]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18147; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:20:37 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981027105326.006ef57c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:53:26 +1100 To: Christian Bernscherer , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <01BDFDFC.A1CE26F0.bernscherer@parsec.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:43 22/10/98 +0200, you wrote: >Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following ruling: (snipped) They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw >the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and changed the score to 3NT -1. > In all the discussion on this thread, nobody seems to have raised the point that bothers me. The AC's decision was illegal, because they were overruling the TD on a point of Law. The TD ruled (wrongly) under Law that the withdrawal of acquiescence was out of time. The AC ruled (correctly) under Law that it was in time. But the AC was not entitled to overrule the TD. Unless, of course, they had persuaded him to change his ruling. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 17:05:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:05:54 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f72.hotmail.com [207.82.250.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA25638 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:05:48 +1100 Received: (qmail 22166 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 1998 06:09:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19981027060907.22165.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 199.166.210.221 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:09:06 PST X-Originating-IP: [199.166.210.221] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:09:06 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (sorry Tim for the duplicate) >From: Tim Goodwin >At 10:19 AM 10/26/98 PST, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>I believe that it is discussions >>of this variety (trying to use nuances in the Laws to try to get >>around what the full FLB obviously intends) > >I think you're off base. I am not trying to "get around" anything. I probably was, some - and I didn't mean you, in particular. I apologize. I definately misinterpreted the purpose of your example question. I agree that definitions of several more terms than are currently defined would be a very good idea, and that those definitions should be well thought out and debated, first. I apologize for this. I jumped, at least a bit, to conclusions, because of your question about Roman Jump Overcalls. In my experience, most of the time that someone wants to argue that something like that is "natural", it's because they are hoping that they'll be able to get it under whatever convention chart they're playing in or so they won't have to Alert it to their opponents. The first is shaky ground (though I have been known to live there :), but the second is definately bridge-lawyer territory. I would certainly not accuse Tim of querying with attempt to bridge-lawyer, even if I hadn't read others of his essays. But I would not say the same about others (not on BLML), and I'm sure the character is not unknown to most, if not all of us. And I would also say that there have been threads where one poster is attempting to justify an interpretation they want, even though it is "obviously" against the spirit of the Laws. And I have already joined those who believe that the ACBL does this in many circumstances (i.e. psychics). >There are regulations, and there are going to be more with the advent >of a set of Laws for online bridge. Why should there not be fewer for online bridge? After all, there are two advantages over (non-screen) FtF bridge - self-alerts, and explanations to opponents only (and any online system that doesn't provide these shouldn't be considered for serious online bridge IMO). The ACBL regs go into a lot of complexity so that there aren't lots of Alerts for "common" artificial bids, and introduce "delayed Alerts" for artificial bids who's Alert would pass on the main more info to partner than to opponents. The EBU chart require a 5-card Major pair to Alert about half of their opening bids (never mind Stayman). But it's simple. Why shouldn't online bridge regs be simpler yet? >It is not enough to say "alert >what should be alerted." Why not? Well, I would write the reg. so that it sounded more like the definition of Artificial bid you provided (I think I said before "Alert (and immediately mini-explain) any call whose meaning you would not completely understand if made by a partnership you do not know.") But it basically means "alert what should be alerted." >There must be better guidelines. It looks perfectly fine to me, unless you're trying to deal with in Alert regs. what should have been covered in Lesson 5 or 6 for new bridge players (and re-covered in Lesson 1 of "new convention #1"), which is "your opponents are entitled to a full and complete understanding of your auction. If in doubt, you should tell them (at the appropriate time)." In online bridge, it should be unnecessary for them to ask - you aren't passing info to partner - unless it's the 5th 10-12 1NT opener in the session. >Before these guidelines are established, it seems to me that there >ought to be clear definitions of terms like conventional, natural and >artificial. I'm just trying to get an understanding of how those >terms are currently defined. > >Anyway, I must have worded my original post wrong. Let me try again: > >Is a bid, such as a Roman jump overcall, which shows the suit bid >plus some other suit natural? Where did the definition you used to >answer the previous question come from? Ok - here's where I got confused. I agree strongly with you here. And I think what you will find is that they aren't, really - we have an "obscenity definition" for them (for those non-NA types, a classic story is of one US judge who said something like "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it.") And I agree that if a set of definitions defines RJO's as "natural" (as opposed to "natural, but" or "natural and"), then that definition needs some work (I know a "natural" bid when I see one, and that ain't it :-). I hope this is slightly less off-base. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 17:33:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:33:15 +1100 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 RAA25682 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:33:09 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:36:56 -0800 Message-ID: <36356AAD.4B0D4260@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:39:41 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19981026151941.007c3420@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > Most definitions of natural which I have come across use as a criteria > length in the suit bid. But, those definitions probably all come from > alert charts. > > >From 1971 Encyclopedia of Bridge: > > NATURAL BIDS. Bids which reflect the character of the hand and suggest a > possible final denomination for the partnership. A natural bid is > contrasted with ARTIFICIAL BID. However, some bids which have artificial > meanings can be used as natural bids. > > ARTIFICIAL BID. An arbitrary call which can be correctly interpreted by > partner only if agreement has been reached about its meaning in advance. > By these definitions a Roman Jump Overcall is semi-artificial (sounds sort > of like being semi-pregnant) and natural. The definition of natural > certainly allows for the possibility of a bid being both natural and > artificial. So, perhaps my presumption that natural and artificial are > opposites is incorrect. Or perhaps you should stop using 27 year old definitions to handle today's problems? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 17:50:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:50:04 +1100 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 RAA25763 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:49:58 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA01698 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:53:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199810270653.WAA01698@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:50:49 -0800 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 Irwin J. Kostal wrote: > > There is not much difference between the Stratified events and the open > pairs we used to have most of the time. In truth, I rather think the > stratified pairs are simply open pairs with better seeding. > As I remember, there was a big difference, at least for championships. The weaker players tended not to participate in open championship events at sectionals and regionals, because they did not enjoy being pounded and it was too hard to win masterpoints. They played in the single-session open side games (popularly known as "rat races") or in events restricted to their peers. My first Los Angeles Bridge Week Regional Open Pairs had just one section in the two-session final, which followed two qualifying sessions. In it were Meyer Schleifer, Lew Mathe, Eddie Taylor, Mary Jane Kauder (now Farell), Arnold Kauder, Milton Vernoff, Stella Rebner, Dr Edward Frischauer, Helen Cale, Jack Ehrlenbach, Ernest Rovere, the Kempners, Marshall Miles, the Portugals, Doug Steen, and Ralph Cash, every one of whom is included in the "Leading Bridge Personalities" section of *The ACBL Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*. Now that was a good game! As I remember the old Bridge Week schedule, it included, besides the four-session Open, a three-session play-through Masters Pairs, Mixed Pairs, Men's Pairs, Women's Pairs, Board-a-Match Teams, and Knockout Teams. That was a fun schedule! The 1998 Bridge Week, now held in Pasadena, had none of those great pair events, just one two-session strati-flighted pairs, five(!) two-session stratified pairs, flighted Swiss teams, and a variety of knockout teams (bracketed by masterpoint holding). The five senior pair games were all two-session stratified games. Whoever is responsible for this schedule has nothing to be proud of. The usual argument given for stratified pairs is that they increase attendance. I see other reasons for their ubiquity, and I emphasize that these are only my impressions of what the reasons could be, for which I have no proof: -- Directors like to have one big game instead of multiple games. Makes their job a lot easier. Tournament managers tend to defer to the DIC when deciding on a schedule. If you were a DIC, what would you recommend? -- Pros prefer stratified games, because it's easier to get masterpoints for clients in a mixed section of A, B, and C players. All they have to do is beat the B and C pairs in their section, and they're probably in the money. Pros, many of whom are ACBL Directors, have a lot of clout. -- B and C players are awarded more masterpoints, overall, in a stratified event than would be awarded to them if they played in separate games. I am not referring to the points won by B & Cs when they get into the A rankings. Assume no B pair places in A, and no C pair places in A or B, and I believe total masterpoints awarded to them are more than they would get in a separate game or games. It's like a bribe to keep them happy with stratified games. -- Entry fees are larger for major events than for concurrent events of less importance. Getting everyone into one stratified so-called "championship" brings in more money. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 19:03:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:03:44 +1100 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 TAA26068 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:03:38 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA11847 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:06:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199810270806.AAA11847@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:03:38 -0800 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 Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I'm sure there's at least one whose > at-the-table nonsense will be a lot harder to deal with > as a result of his learning from BLML. > It is difficult to believe that conscientious adherence to the Laws and ACBL regulations, aided by interpretative knowledge gained from BLML, could encourage "at-the-table nonsense." Most nonsense that I have seen comes from ignorance of the Laws, unethical questioning, badgering of inexperienced players, refusal to obey convention card regulations, and ignorance of the ACBL Alert Procedure. Participating on BLML can only help players with these shortcomings. If they also learn their rights as players, all the better. > Grattan wrote: > |>But on the > |>other hand WBFLC has a plain duty to counter this trend by > |>pronouncing clearly and authoritatively upon the law. > > Every 7 years or so. It's not at all clear that the WBFLC > has the authority to rule on cases between Laws revisions. > According to Law 93, a "national authority" may be the > final source of such authority in the case of an appeal. Interpreting the Laws by issuing authoritative pronouncements, and ruling on specific appeals, are two different activities. The by-laws of the WBF state that the WBF LC interprets the Laws. That has been debated and the principle generally accepted a short while ago on BLML, perhaps you missed it. However, I don't believe the WBF LC is interested in acting as the "final source" for ruling on specific cases. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 20:39:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:39:36 +1100 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 UAA26332 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:39:24 +1100 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 KAA13468 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:43:01 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810270943.KAA13468@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, 27 Oct 1998 10:44:04 +0000 Subject: Card played by defender? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 fax (+)31 (0)20 525 7431 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 20:54:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:54:18 +1100 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 UAA26369 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:54:12 +1100 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 KAA13975 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:57:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810270957.KAA13975@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, 27 Oct 1998 10:59:00 +0000 Subject: Card played by defender? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, the first message was empty... Here goes again: The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until now. s - h K d J c - s - s 7 h QJ h - d - d - c - c 7 s 9 h 3 d - c - West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. "I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! Is she allowed to replace this? JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 27 21:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:54:37 +1100 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 VAA26549 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:54:26 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F1H00010FSV94@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:58:08 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA19390; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:57:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:57:53 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-reply-to: <199810270957.KAA13975@hera.frw.uva.nl>; from "Jan Peter Pals" at Oct 27, 98 10:59 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F1H00011FSV94@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP, Interesting. IMO 45C4a must be applied. But if someone says "I will ruff", does that means in this case playing the Spade suit ? It sometimes happens that people are confused and think that perhaps club is triumph-suit. I have seen this. But this a big exeption. I will tacticly try to check if the Eastplayer knew that Spade was trumph and then normally allow East to play Spade 7. I suppose it was a mispull. Evert. -------------------------------- > The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until > now. > > s - > h K > d J > c - > s - s 7 > h QJ h - > d - d - > c - c 7 > s 9 > h 3 > d - > c - > > West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. > "I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! > Is she allowed to replace this? > > JP > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Oct 27 23:40:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:40:28 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f156.hotmail.com [207.82.251.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26841 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:40:22 +1100 Received: (qmail 19915 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 1998 12:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19981027124341.19914.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:43:41 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played by defender? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:43:41 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals said: >Sorry, the first message was empty... >Here goes again: > >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until >now. > > s - > h K > d J > c - >s - s 7 >h QJ h - >d - d - >c - c 7 > s 9 > h 3 > d - > c - > >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! >Is she allowed to replace this? > >JP > > I don't think that defenders are supposed to give a running commentary on the cards that they play. Seven of Clubs stands as played, West has UI about East's trump holding, for, what it's worth, and East gets a procedural fine for talking at an inappropriate moment. Easy game. Hello, by the way... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 00:13:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:13:54 +1100 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 AAA28536 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:13:37 +1100 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 HAA11135 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:31:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981027081627.007a5670@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:16:27 -0500 To: blml From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <36356AAD.4B0D4260@home.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981026151941.007c3420@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 PM 10/26/98 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Or perhaps you should stop using 27 year old definitions to handle >today's problems? :-) Great idea! What are today's definitions? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 00:43:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:43:21 +1100 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 AAA29330 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:43:16 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id IAA23861 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Oct27.082800.1189.282544; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:47:36 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws) Message-ID: <1998Oct27.082800.1189.282544@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: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:47:36 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 1:30 AM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Tim wrote >>There are regulations, and there are going to be more with the advent >>of a set of Laws for online bridge. And Michael Farebrother responded >Why should there not be fewer for online bridge? >... >The ACBL regs go into a lot of complexity so that >there aren't lots of Alerts for "common" artificial bids, and >introduce "delayed Alerts" for artificial bids who's Alert would >pass on the main more info to partner than to opponents. The >EBU chart require a 5-card Major pair to Alert about half of >their opening bids (never mind Stayman). But it's simple. > >Why shouldn't online bridge regs be simpler yet? Because there are more important goals for an alert system than ensuring the simplest possible implementation of the regulations. The biggest problem that I have with the EBU Alert system can be summed up in four words "Signal to Noise Ratio". An alert can be thought of as a flag that conveys a single piece of information. In this case, the presence of an alert indicates that a bid is in some way unusual or non-standard, and that the opposing pair might want to pay special attention to this bid or inquire about its meaning. The absence of an alert will typically indicate that a bid should be considered standard. Unfortunately, because the alert only conveys a single piece of information, it is intrinsically limited. In particular, alert structures encounter the most difficulty when a single bid that has just been alerted might conceivably have multiple different alertable meaning. An alerted 2D response to a 1N opening could be either a transfer bid or Game Forcing Stayman. An alerted 2C response to a 1N opening could be either Stayman or a Burgay transfer. It is impossible for a simple alert (in the absence of an announcement) to distinguish between the different cases. Hence, we have a problem. The larger the number of alertable bids, the less important that the information conveyed by an alert becomes. In the case of the alert system adopted by the EBU, there are so many alerts of common and inconsequential bids that important information is masked by background noise. There are a number of potential ways to attempt to alleviate this problem. One possibility is to attempt to develop multiple different "types" of alerts, similar to the ACBL's failed "special alert" experiment several years backs. A second possibility is to supplement the basic alert structure with some other way of conveying information - for example, announcements. A final option is to decrease the number of bids that require alerts. What is important to note is that any of these systems introduces the potential to substantially increase the complexity of the alert system. I feel that it is a mistake to attempt to define the alert system for on line bridge in isolation. In reality, a partnership has multiple different ways of exchanging information with their opponents. In addition to the basic alert structures, there are also options for Pre-Alerts Announcements/Explanations Convention Cards Any system that we define for on-line bridge should take advantage of all of these technologies and should be implemented in such a manner that it imposes as little inconvenience as possible for the end user. Richard (BTW, just for the record, I have played in a number of European clubs and tournaments. I would hate to be though of as a typical American spouting off about subjects where I have no first hand experience) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 00:52:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:52:02 +1100 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 AAA29352 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:51:55 +1100 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 IAA13861 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:10:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981027085452.007ad1d0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:54:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures In-Reply-To: <19981027060907.22165.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:09 PM 10/26/98 PST, Michael Farebrother wrote: >>There are regulations, and there are going to be more with the advent >>of a set of Laws for online bridge. > >Why should there not be fewer for online bridge? Online bridge will probably have fewer regulations that f2f bridge in the ACBL. But, there will be a new set of regulations for online bridge in addition to the existing set of regulations for f2f bridge in the ACBL. I only meant there will be an extra set of regulations and thus more regulations. >>It is not enough to say "alert >what should be alerted." > >Why not? Well, I would write the reg. so that it sounded more >like the definition of Artificial bid you provided (I think I said >before "Alert (and immediately mini-explain) any call whose >meaning you would not completely understand if made by a partnership >you do not know.") But it basically means "alert what should be >alerted." We agree. While the effect of the regulation should be "alert what should be alerted," the regulation has to be worded differently. There are bridge lawyers out there who will try to get around their obligations if the regulation is vague, afterall. >>Is a bid, such as a Roman jump overcall, which shows the suit bid >plus >some other suit natural? Where did the definition you used to >answer >the previous question come from? > >Ok - here's where I got confused. I agree strongly with you here. >And I agree that if a >set of definitions defines RJO's as "natural" (as opposed to >"natural, but" or "natural and"), then that definition needs some >work (I know a "natural" bid when I see one, and that ain't it :-). Actually, I think the Roman Jump Overcall is natural (natural and). I also think it needs an alert. (Which is actually what prompted this discussion in the first place.) It seems that each (or at least many) SO has their own definition of natural for alerting purposes: EBU. 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes... ACBL. ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows... are the two that I have immediate access to. If you read the rest of each definition, you will find that natural in the ACBL and natural in the EBU mean quite different things. What I would like to see is a universal definition of natural. I'm not suggesting that all SO should have the same alert requirements, but it would be nice if each SO used the same definition of natural. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 00:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:59:58 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f230.hotmail.com [207.82.251.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29377 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:59:52 +1100 Received: (qmail 12620 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 1998 14:03:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19981027140312.12619.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:02:04 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Sorry... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:02:04 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do apologise, I don't think that I should have posted to this mailing list without first introducing myself. My name's Norman Scorbie, and I'm the secretary and Tournament Director at a small Bridge Club in East Anglia (that's the East of England for those who live abroad). We meet twice a week for duplicate games, and normally have a five or six table Howell movement. We're not affiliated to the English Bridge Union, and see no need to be, as our members have no interest in Master Points (plenty of places for them to play if they do) and players rarely stray from the environs of our own club. This is all well and good, but it puts a bit of a burden on me. I think that I know the rules of the game up to a point, and to be honest, at my club it's often a question of getting things moving along rather than anything else, but my members seem to be getting more and more litigious. Seems that the more they find out about the Laws, the more they try to use them, but gosh, do they get confused, and so do I! Anyway, I've subscribed to this list in the hope that I'll get a few pointers from more experienced legal types than me. If I contribute a reply to anyone, it'll be based on what I'd do at my place, not necessarily what the Laws say! Sorry again that I replied so hastily to the previous posting, but I was so eager to help, and that one really did seem obvious! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 01:30:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:30:49 +1100 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 BAA29482 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:30:42 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA14785 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:34:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:34:29 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Sorry... In-Reply-To: <19981027140312.12619.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie introduced himself. Welcome aboard. There are initiation rites. You do have to introduce the cats (and now dogs) that you belong to. :-) -- Richard Lighton |"Visit the poor, by all means, and give them tea and (lighton@idt.net)| barley-water, but don't do it as if you were admin- Wood-Ridge NJ | istering a bowl of deadly nightshade. It upsets them." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 02:17:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:17:04 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f228.hotmail.com [207.82.251.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA29813 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:16:59 +1100 Received: (qmail 27833 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 1998 15:20:19 -0000 Message-ID: <19981027152019.27832.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:20:18 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Cats? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:20:18 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mrs. Scorbie and I do indeed have two cats: Moggies, I'm afraid, none of your pedigree stuff. Despite both being female they're called Starsky and Hutch, for no reason other than the fact that Starsky's black-and-white coat looks like a horrible chunky cardigan! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 02:43:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:43:26 +1100 Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29870 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:43:20 +1100 Received: from Demeter.schs.com (ip240.pasadena3.ca.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.85.240]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA25404 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:47:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006301be01c1$25569620$cf64c80a@Demeter.schs.com> From: "Demeter" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Initiation Rites Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:46:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >There are initiation rites. > >You do have to introduce the cats (and now dogs) that you >belong to. :-) > Hi, all, I've been lurking here for a few months, but haven't posted anything. I'm not a director or official, just a regular player interested in all facets of our game, and I've learned quite a lot from reading all your notes. I haven't as yet complied with the initiation rites, so..... We live with two cats and one dog. They are Nikolai, a big handsome orange guy who KNOWS he's first cousin to a lion, Zonker, a long-haired brown and white lump who thinks he's the definition of lap cat and who is also the chew toy of Katrina, a beautiful Samoyed who loves everyone. Demeter Manning From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 03:00:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:00:39 +1100 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 DAA29912 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:00:33 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc42h.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.81]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23604 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:04:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981027105916.006afe04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:59:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: <199810270957.KAA13975@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM 10/27/98 +0000, Jan wrote: >Sorry, the first message was empty... >Here goes again: > >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until >now. > > s - > h K > d J > c - >s - s 7 >h QJ h - >d - d - >c - c 7 > s 9 > h 3 > d - > c - > >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! >Is she allowed to replace this? > "Bow wow", says the TD, and no, she may not. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 03:05:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:05:24 +1100 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 DAA29952 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:05:17 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc42h.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.81]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11967 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:09:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981027110420.006b61ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:04:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: <0F1H00011FSV94@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> References: <199810270957.KAA13975@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:57 AM 10/27/98 +0100, Evert wrote: >JP, > > Interesting. IMO 45C4a must be applied. But if someone says "I will ruff", >does that means in this case playing the Spade suit ? It sometimes happens >that people are confused and think that perhaps club is triumph-suit. I have >seen this. But this a big exeption. I will tacticly try to check if the >Eastplayer knew that Spade was trumph and then normally allow East to play >Spade 7. I suppose it was a mispull. > She did not "name or designate a card" as specified in L45C4a. To be precise, she made a prediction which turned out to be incorrect. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 03:06:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:06:25 +1100 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 DAA29966 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:06:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-162.uunet.be [194.7.13.162]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04102 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:10:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3635A830.5E59E24C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:02:08 +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: Re: L25B behind screens References: <1.5.4.32.19981026160331.006c5790@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > > Herman wrote: > >Do we have a copy of the WBF screen regulations on-line somewhere ? > > This is from > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > APPENDIX I > Screen Procedures > Whose regulations are these ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 03:06:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:06:36 +1100 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 DAA29973 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 03:06:29 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-162.uunet.be [194.7.13.162]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04132 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:10:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3635A830.5E59E24C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:02:08 +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: Re: L25B behind screens References: <1.5.4.32.19981026160331.006c5790@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > > Herman wrote: From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 04:19:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:19:50 +1100 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 EAA00344 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:19:40 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-173.access.net.il [192.116.198.173]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA00387; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:22:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3636016C.B2A00167@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:22:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Norman Scorbie CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Sorry... References: <19981027140312.12619.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome Norm You may reply and you are invited , for sure , to ask questions . IMHO the best TD is the one who is not shy to ask , check again and again his decisions and .....remember to use Law 0 and Law 99 before any other law.... Cheers Dany Norman Scorbie wrote: > > I do apologise, I don't think that I should have posted to this mailing > list without first introducing myself. My name's Norman Scorbie, and I'm > the secretary and Tournament Director at a small Bridge Club in East > Anglia (that's the East of England for those who live abroad). We meet > twice a week for duplicate games, and normally have a five or six table > Howell movement. We're not affiliated to the English Bridge Union, and > see no need to be, as our members have no interest in Master Points > (plenty of places for them to play if they do) and players rarely stray > from the environs of our own club. > This is all well and good, but it puts a bit of a burden on me. I think > that I know the rules of the game up to a point, and to be honest, at my > club it's often a question of getting things moving along rather than > anything else, but my members seem to be getting more and more > litigious. Seems that the more they find out about the Laws, the more > they try to use them, but gosh, do they get confused, and so do I! > Anyway, I've subscribed to this list in the hope that I'll get a few > pointers from more experienced legal types than me. If I contribute a > reply to anyone, it'll be based on what I'd do at my place, not > necessarily what the Laws say! > Sorry again that I replied so hastily to the previous posting, but I was > so eager to help, and that one really did seem obvious! > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 04:46:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:46:00 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f41.hotmail.com [207.82.250.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA00507 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:45:53 +1100 Received: (qmail 3970 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19981027174913.3969.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 199.166.210.221 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:49:08 PST X-Originating-IP: [199.166.210.221] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:49:08 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) >Tim wrote > >>>There are regulations, and there are going to be more with the >>>advent of a set of Laws for online bridge. > >And Michael Farebrother responded > >>Why should there not be fewer for online bridge? >>... >>The ACBL regs go into a lot of complexity so that >>there aren't lots of Alerts for "common" artificial bids, and >>introduce "delayed Alerts" for artificial bids who's Alert would >>pass on the main more info to partner than to opponents. The >>EBU chart require a 5-card Major pair to Alert about half of >>their opening bids (never mind Stayman). But it's simple. >> >>Why shouldn't online bridge regs be simpler yet? > >Because there are more important goals for an alert system >than ensuring the simplest possible implementation of the >regulations. The biggest problem that I have with the EBU >Alert system can be summed up in four words "Signal to Noise >Ratio". > I agree. The most important goal is to give the best possible approximation to "the opponents are entitled to a full and complete understanding of your bidding system" that we can get, without shoving 60 pages of system notes down their throats, and without transmitting too much UI to partner. >An alert can be thought of as a flag that conveys a single piece >of information. In this case, the presence of an alert indicates that >a bid is in some way unusual or non-standard, and that the opposing >pair might want to pay special attention to this bid or inquire about its > >meaning. The absence of an alert will typically indicate that a bid >should be considered standard. Unfortunately, because the alert >only conveys a single piece of information, it is intrinsically limited. > Yes. However, in my messages on this topic, I said many times "alert and immediately give first-level explanation". Now, absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered standard. Alert still gives a single piece of information, but now that information is "non-standard; explanation coming". It is no longer limited, because we are not limited to just "Alert". >It is impossible for a simple alert (in the absence of an >announcement) to distinguish between the different cases [of, >for instance, 2D/1NT; GF Stayman or Jacoby xf? - mdf ed]. > True - but in my view, all alerts (anywhere where alerts and explanations can be hidden from partner) are announcements; it is certainly possible to distinguish between 2D! "only GF bid; Stayman responses" and 2D! "txf to H". >There are a number of potential ways to attempt to alleviate this >problem. One possibility is to attempt to develop multiple different >"types" of alerts, similar to the ACBL's failed "special alert" >experiment several years backs. >A second possibility is to supplement the basic alert structure with >some other way of conveying information - for example, announcements. > A final option is to decrease the number of bids that require >alerts. What is important to note is that any of these systems >introduces the potential to substantially increase the complexity of >the alert system. > Only if you have to deal with UI transmitted to partner. Otherwise, the alert system is as follows: "Alert any call with a non-standard meaning. Pass the 5-second explanation to opponents immediately, and be prepared to give a more detailed one if asked for." This is not complex. I do not see where there could be problems. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. >I feel that it is a mistake to attempt to define the alert system for >online bridge in isolation. In reality, a partnership has multiple >different ways of exchanging information with their opponents. In >addition to the basic alert structures, there are also options for > >Pre-Alerts >Announcements/Explanations >Convention Cards > I see nothing wrong with that - in fact, I do it all the time now. People sit against my partner and I and I say "hello XXX and YYY. BTW, we're playing an aggressive Precision system, we preempt very light, and we open 10-12 NTs opposite a non-passed hand." Our convention card is as complete as I can put in 25x80, and is loaded and available to opponents at any time. And when I open 1NT, I announce to opponents "10-12"; when I rebid 2NT to pd's 2D response, I alert and explain (to opponents) "no 4cM, no 5cm". It really is easy (except when I have to explain what 4cM and 5cm are - sometimes I abbreviate too much). That doesn't mean that I need a more complicated alert structure than "alert and explain anything non-standard." >Any system that we define for on-line bridge should take advantage of >all of these technologies and should be implemented in such a manner >that it imposes as little inconvenience as possible for the end user. > If I played this system more frequently than I do, I would script up the most common explanations. If I had it available, I would automate the explanations from my system notes. If I felt like spending the time, I could have a HTML CC with links from the mini-explanations directly to our system notes, if the opponents wanted the "full and complete" that way. Currently, typing stuff in is easily little enough inconvenience (though I do type 40 wpm, and since I'm playing OKB on a UNIX box, I don't need to move my hand from mouse to keyboard all the time). I think your points are well thought out, but still tied to "tweaking what we have" rather than rethinking them with the decreased UI to partner (not removed, unfortunately - there are still delays) foremost in mind. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 04:47:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:47:48 +1100 Received: from post.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 EAA00530 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:47:37 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYDGn-0007hj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:51:01 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:35:33 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Card played by defender? Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:35:31 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > > > >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until > >now. > > > > s - > > h K > > d J > > c - > >s - s 7 > >h QJ h - > >d - d - > >c - c 7 > > s 9 > > h 3 > > d - > > c - > > > >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. > >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! > >Is she allowed to replace this? > > > "Bow wow", says the TD, and no, she may not. > > ######## What about Law 45C4(a) which states that " A card must be > played if a player names *or otherwise* designates it as the card he > proposes to play." I suggest that the trump is played and the C7 is a > defender's exposed card. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 05:24:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:24:45 +1100 Received: from zeus.ic.com.pl (root@zeus.ic.com.pl [195.117.22.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00658 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:24:37 +1100 Received: from default (ppp4-178.warszawa.tpnet.pl [195.205.246.178]) by zeus.ic.com.pl (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA04351 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:28:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002701be01d8$23f253c0$b2f6cdc3@default> From: "=?iso-8859-2?B?U7Nhd2VrICBMYXRhs2E=?=" To: Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:32:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE01E0.80D69080" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE01E0.80D69080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable subscribe bridge-laws ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE01E0.80D69080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
subscribe = bridge-laws
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE01E0.80D69080-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 05:30:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:30:14 +1100 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 FAA00681 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:30:07 +1100 From: bills@cshore.com Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5930800 ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:30:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:32:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Cc: bills@cshore.com Message-Id: <199810271930.5930800@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >"(Self-) alert (1) ALL artificial calls and (2) ALL natural calls with a >special, pre-agreed meaning". [snip] This is, as many surely noted, similar in a general sense to WBF alert policy (http://www1.bridge.gr/dept/systems/alerts.htm), quoted in part below, as well as the EBU alert policy. "1.Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. (A Convention is a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named.) 2.Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. [snip] 3.Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit." I have considered this to be a useful foundation upon which to build a general internet bridge alert standard; while there has been some discussion here about the meaning of the definition of convention, the concept is a generally useful one from the standpoint of alert policies if it is understood to include calls which have more than one meaning, one or more of which is not related to the denomination named. The more difficult problem, to which Jan alluded, is defining what is meant by "special". WBF alert policy item #3 spells out a few of the more salient examples of special meanings, and various NCBOs have provided further examples of what constitutes "special". These efforts have been influenced by a variety of factors, including the realization that the meaningfulness of an alert diminishes in proportion to the number of calls which are defined as alertable. The associated alert conundrum arises out of a simple mathematical reality; a binary code (alert or no alert) is not a very effective way of attempting to describe a multitude of possibilities (some bids could have a half or dozen or more meanings, some conventional and some not, some special and some not). Certainly, convention card consultation and the direction of appropriate questions to the opponents will remain an important part of the equation, but accompanying brief private explanations in internet bridge have proven to be a well-accepted and remarkably effective tool for alleviating the informational burden on alerts. If accompanying private explanations are deemed to be an acceptable and desirable standard, it seems to me that much of the rest of the design of alert policies falls into place relatively naturally behind it. Relieved of the pressure to maximize the informational content of an alert, sponsoring organizations would, imo, do well to define their alert policies broadly and with attention to the full breadth of their constituencies, rather than by attempting to make fine distinctions on the basis of what may be considered standard. In the end, this can lead to significant simplification of alert policies, with the more difficult questions handled by something akin to section #4 of the WBF alert preamble "The Policy has been made as simple as possible. Players, however, are expected to alert whenever there is doubt." Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 05:41:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:41:38 +1100 Received: from post.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 FAA00700 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:41:29 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYE7J-0007D7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:45:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:43:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Sorry... In-Reply-To: <19981027140312.12619.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19981027140312.12619.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie writes >I do apologise, I don't think that I should have posted to this mailing >list without first introducing myself. My name's Norman Scorbie, and I'm >the secretary and Tournament Director at a small Bridge Club in East >Anglia (that's the East of England for those who live abroad). We meet >twice a week for duplicate games, and normally have a five or six table >Howell movement. We're not affiliated to the English Bridge Union, and >see no need to be, as our members have no interest in Master Points >(plenty of places for them to play if they do) and players rarely stray >from the environs of our own club. >This is all well and good, but it puts a bit of a burden on me. I think >that I know the rules of the game up to a point, and to be honest, at my >club it's often a question of getting things moving along rather than >anything else, but my members seem to be getting more and more >litigious. Seems that the more they find out about the Laws, the more >they try to use them, but gosh, do they get confused, and so do I! >Anyway, I've subscribed to this list in the hope that I'll get a few >pointers from more experienced legal types than me. If I contribute a >reply to anyone, it'll be based on what I'd do at my place, not >necessarily what the Laws say! >Sorry again that I replied so hastily to the previous posting, but I was >so eager to help, and that one really did seem obvious! > Welcome to the group Norman,and BTW I'd have ruled card played and UI regarding the remark. 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 Oct 28 06:32:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:32:03 +1100 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 GAA00837 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:31:58 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa15517; 27 Oct 98 11:35 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Sorry... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:43:55 PST." Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:35:18 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9810271135.aa15517@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Welcome to the group Norman,and BTW I'd have ruled card played and UI > regarding the remark. Just out of curiosity, how can you all rule UI when, at the time the remark was made, offender's partner had only one card left in her hand? Or will you have the TD explain to West what her obligations are when considering the logical alternatives to playing the one card she has left? :) :) :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 06:55:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:55:25 +1100 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 GAA00878 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:55:19 +1100 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 OAA11752 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:13:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981027145818.007c1410@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:58:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <19981027174913.3969.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael Farebrother wrote: >"Alert any call with a non-standard meaning. I don't believe the word 'standard' has a place in online alerting regulations. What is standard to me may not be standard to you. And, very often I do not know where you are from or what your bridge upbringing is, so I have no way of knowing what I should expect standard to mean to you. Beyond that, I believe an alerting system should be simple for new players to grasp. Newcomers don't know what is standard to them, let alone what might be standard to someone else. On another track, scripting alerts certainly seems disireable to me -- I have done it in the past. But, those scripts can serve as a memory aide. For instance, my partner and I recently inverted the meanings of 1C-1D and 1C-1N. I have forgotten this a few times. If there was a script button visible I may be more likely to remember our agreements. And, as you will gather from reading some other threads, I don't believe memory aides should be permitted in online competition. Ideally, the scripts would be available only to the opponents. Of course, this may not be practical. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 07:18:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:18:59 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00943 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:18:48 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA08473; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:22:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008385; Tue Oct 27 14:21:52 1998 Received: by har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE01BD.844DF1E0@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:21:49 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE01BD.844DF1E0@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Norman Scorbie'" Subject: RE: Card played by defender? Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:29:04 -0500 Encoding: 56 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome Norman. :-) I agree fully except I might make that a procedural warning rather than a fine at lower levels where the player really might not have known better. FWIW she has just gotten a bad board anyhow for the misplay, though if you have problems of this nature with her regularly with inappropriate comments, then load on the fine. Craig ---------- From: Norman Scorbie[SMTP:normanscorbie@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 7:43 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played by defender? Jan Peter Pals said: >Sorry, the first message was empty... >Here goes again: > >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until >now. > > s - > h K > d J > c - >s - s 7 >h QJ h - >d - d - >c - c 7 > s 9 > h 3 > d - > c - > >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! >Is she allowed to replace this? > >JP > > I don't think that defenders are supposed to give a running commentary on the cards that they play. Seven of Clubs stands as played, West has UI about East's trump holding, for, what it's worth, and East gets a procedural fine for talking at an inappropriate moment. Easy game. Hello, by the way... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 07:20:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:20:25 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com ([207.227.70.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00962 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:20:19 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zYFey-001b6cC; Tue, 27 Oct 98 15:24 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:23:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Sorry... In-Reply-To: <9810271135.aa15517@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_22616110==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_22616110==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:35 PM 10/27/98 , Adam Beneschan wrote: > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Welcome to the group Norman,and BTW I'd have ruled card played and UI >> regarding the remark. > >Just out of curiosity, how can you all rule UI when, at the time the >remark was made, offender's partner had only one card left in her >hand? Or will you have the TD explain to West what her obligations >are when considering the logical alternatives to playing the one card >she has left? No damage (this time), but still UI. John S. Nichols --=====================_22616110==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:35 PM 10/27/98 , Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
>
>> Welcome to the group Norman,and BTW I'd have ruled card played and UI
>> regarding the remark. 
>
>Just out of curiosity, how can you all rule UI when, at the time the
>remark was made, offender's partner had only one card left in her
>hand?  Or will you have the TD explain to West what her obligations
>are when considering the logical alternatives to playing the one card
>she has left?


No damage (this time), but still UI.
John S. Nichols
--=====================_22616110==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 08:04:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:04:03 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01067 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:03:56 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:05:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp20-98.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.98] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:05:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <363635B7.5FE3@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:05:59 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 2penatlycards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologize for my mistakes, but I don't speak english and I try to write with one hand, the dictionnary french-english in the other ! About penalty cards, I think you agree with me : if you have 2 or more penalty cards law 50 does not applied. You have to apply law 51 like I read it in law 50 D 2 (a) ok? De: LORMANT Philippe Well, law 51 says: "when a defender has two or more penalty cards in one suit (b) if the declarer prohibits the lead of that suit the defender picks up every card in that suit and make any legal play to the trick" .Final point Look that law 51 does not say "prohibition applies for as long as he retains ( the defender) the lead" like in law 50 when you have only one penalty card. Is it worst to have only one penalty card than two?? Oh, Shakespeare, I beg your pardon.. Philippe Lormant F.F.B. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 09:13:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:13:23 +1100 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 JAA01274 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:13:10 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA24128; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:16:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023868; Tue Oct 27 16:15:03 1998 Received: by har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE01CD.524F3A40@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:14:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE01CD.524F3A40@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: blml , "'Jan Kamras'" Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:12:54 -0500 Encoding: 68 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This would of course have us alerting all cue bids, Blackwood and its responses, not onlyuy a transfer but the response thereto, and like the folks across the pond Stayman. One might as well just alert everything...we are approaching the problem of the boy who cried wolf...no one will bother to ask what the alerts mean in less they want online bridge to take as long as ftf. Standards that eliminate the obvious alerts might make a lot more sense. I would favour not alerting one club after pre-alerting that Precision is the system employed; not alerting Flannery responses after alerting the 2d (or 2H) opener etc. As a matter of fact, since most good bridge software allows you to ask bidder without giving partner UI that you are even asking, why not reserve alerts for actions that are HUMs...and let people playing standard systems get on with the game? If inexperienced players persist in entering advanced play under a guise of presumed expertise they should forfeit excess protection. If they play at their own level, they will not likely encounter much that is arcane until they are advanced enough to enquire and comprehend. Craig ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 3:24 AM To: blml Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures Tim Goodwin wrote: > > Hi, > > There have been many discussions on the OKbridge newsgroup about alert > procedures. One suggestion is to require alerts for all calls which are > not natural. I presented, on rgbo, a procedure that would be fair to all regardless of origin and, most importantly, supersimple to apply. It goes something like: "(Self-) alert (1) ALL artificial calls and (2) ALL natural calls with a special, pre-agreed meaning". Of course one can argue abt the interpretation of "special", but I meant it to be what you might also describe as "conventional but natural". I believe the whole discussion can be made easier if one thinks in terms of natural vs artificial rather than natural vs conventional. An artificial call is always conventional but a natural call can be either/or. > > Is a bid like a Roman Jump Overcall (for instance, (1D)-2H to show hearts > and spades) considered natural? It seems to me that this overcall is both > natural and conventional. Accordingly, this would be alerted under no (2), and there would be no contradiction in that whatsoever. > It seems that natural and artificial are opposites. Indeed. > Is there a term (aside > from non-conventional) to describe the opposite of conventional? I don't think one is neccessary for our purposes. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 13:30:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:30:26 +1100 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 NAA01861 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:30:15 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.52] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zYLPZ-0005z3-00; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:32:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001601be021b$6be38d00$422b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:32:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin (and others) wrote words to this effect: >> > >> >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until >> >now. >> > >> > s - >> > h K >> > d J >> > c - >> >s - s 7 >> >h QJ h - >> >d - d - >> >c - c 7 >> > s 9 >> > h 3 >> > d - >> > c - >> > >> >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. >> >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! >> >Is she allowed to replace this? >> > >> "Bow wow", says the TD, and no, she may not. >> >> ######## What about Law 45C4(a) which states that " A card must be >> played if a player names *or otherwise* designates it as the card he >> proposes to play." I suggest that the trump is played and the C7 is a >> defender's exposed card. ######### > What about it, indeed. If a player is permitted (and the Laws say so) to "play" a card by some means other than by taking a card from her hand and placing it on the table, then the trump is the card that East "played", regardless of the card that East physically played. There is a dichotomy here which is relevant to both this question and the much-debated "LOOT? Revoke?" question. In each case, a player took out of his/her/its? hand a card that was wholly incompatible with his/her...OK, their intentions, and put that card in the "played" position on the table. What it boils down to appears to be this: if bridge is a sport entirely of the mind, then the card the player "obviously" meant to play takes precedence, and the "reason(s)" for which they played or "otherwise designated" some other card which appeared "by accident" determine its status as, for example, a fifth card to this trick or a first (joke) card to the next. If, on the other hand, bridge is a sport in which some degree of physical co-ordination is required, or at any rate assumed, then the card which hits the table takes precedence in the context of the physical moment in which it was played. I think that the game would be a great deal easier both to administer and to play if, as in other sports, we took the view that "what happened, happened" - regardless of why it might have happened. As with so many questions on this list, the problem would never have arisen if only the type 1 rules were tough enough. In this case, they should be tough enough not to allow any notice to be taken of a statement such as "I ruff" by East; in the LOOT case, they should be tough enough to determine which trick was in progress when someone played a card. This means, in the present case, that I think Law 45(c)(4)(a) is unnecessary. I would venture to suggest that in every possible sphere of life, Law 45(c)(4)(a) is always unnecessary, whatever it may say. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 16:00:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:00:40 +1100 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 QAA02234 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:00:31 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-5.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.171]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA17655 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:04:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3636A5C7.BF00A6B2@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:04:07 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: three passes????? Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E5DB13D694086181E935B776" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E5DB13D694086181E935B776 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : 1D -1S - P - P 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you rule???? -- Nancy T. Dressing --------------E5DB13D694086181E935B776 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for nancy Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: nancy n: ;nancy email;internet: nancy@pinehurst.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------E5DB13D694086181E935B776-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 18:17:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:17:24 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (root@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA02320 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:17:16 +1100 Received: from localhost (fsgrb@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA01371 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:38:53 -0900 (AKST) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:38:52 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, an unfortunate name for the thread, but I might as well comment here instead of launching a new stratified-pairs thread... after all, this doesn't exactly relate directly to the laws adn I'd rather not promote an endless discussion. But I will toss out a few thoughts. When ACBLscore matchpoints across the field, there are no "section awards" but there are are session-and-direction awards. Suppose each of three sections has 6 A, 4 B, and 3 C pairs; instead of giving out 5 A, 3 B, and 1 C award to each of six sub-fields, there will be 15, 9, and 3 awards given to two sub-fields (all EW and all NS), with the top three session awards in B gold instead of one per section. Matchpointing across the field seems on the whole to be better than within sections. However, in my experience, most C players dislike it. Why? For every "my 48% would have been a 52% if I had been in a different section" complaint, there will be three "I was first in C in my section but because the A players in my section were so good NONE of us got a session award" complaints. This is partly because only C players who carefuly comb all the other recap sheets make the former complaint. And, of course, the latter complaint becomes less common among more experienced players. As others have noted, stratified events are popular among many players for a variety of reasons - among them the chance for the non-experts to play against strong opposition (with less "risk" of not placing than if they played up in a flighted game) and increasing the size of the field. One of my reasons personally for liking stratified events is that I despise the masterpoint formula for flighted games. The A section receives awards based on the total table count in the event. Adding more B players to the event makes almost no difference to the strength of field that the A players play against, but increases both masterpoint awards and number of places given in A. Apparently everyone just accepted that this was "the way it is" until Flight A2/X got created a couple years back. Everybody complained about the A2 people getting far too many masterpoints (because B and C counted toward A2, but A2 itself was a smallish flight). But ACBL missed the point completely, making complicated changes to how A2 awards are chosen but failing to repair the underlying flaw in how flighted awards are given. Back when I had only about 50 masterpoints, I figured this out and swore never to play flighed games again. I have since moved up a couple flights, and tried a couple more flighted games, and I still have all the same objections to them. At least in an honest _flighted_ game one has the choice to play up; a fair number of the Master/Nonmaster games I have encountered the non-masters are denied the opportunity. (Barring all those under a certain MP limit, IMHO, should make a game restricted and limit it to 80% rating - but in fact it can, under certain circumstances, _increase_ the MP rating, if I read the tech files with ACBLscore correctly.) Sigh. Stratified is not perfect. Yes, the presence of weaker players does make the results somewhat more random than in a flighted game. But I still find it better than most of the alternatives for everday purposes. As for number of boards per round, I prefer 3-board rounds, myself. In a large game, this means the dealer changes every round for EW. In the club games I direct, I have a lot of problems with slow play, and more rounds = more delays, so I avoid 2-board rounds like the plague in the interest of ending the game on time. The exception is a 7-table game, which we tend to run as a Howell to award for masterpoints and to give everyone a chance to meet. As long as we're on the subject, I'll note that I have always preferred longer than usual sessions. I read books about world championships before I ever played in a tournament myself, and was profoundly disappointed to find that sessions weren't 32 boards each anymore! I remember "I want to play 26 instead of 22" being the main reason I had to play in open events when I still qualified for the novice games - especially since the novice games rarely if ever had reduced entry fees. Enough ranting. Back to your regular bridge laws content. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 19:18:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:18:05 +1100 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 TAA02392 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:17:59 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA28645 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:21:14 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:21:14 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Nancy's Desk" Cc: bridge laws Subject: Re: three passes????? In-Reply-To: <3636A5C7.BF00A6B2@pinehurst.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: > At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : > 1D -1S - P - P > 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the > other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids > 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids > cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid > and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by > the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid > and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades > but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you > rule???? There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. Then, somebody should tell LHO that it is not appropriate to pick up her bidding cards when the auctio is still going on. 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 Wed Oct 28 19:25:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:25:07 +1100 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 TAA02411 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:24:58 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYQyF-00073N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:28:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:21:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Sorry... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "John S. Nichols" writes > >At 07:35 PM 10/27/98 , Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> Welcome to the group Norman,and BTW I'd have ruled card played and UI >>> regarding the remark. >> >>Just out of curiosity, how can you all rule UI when, at the time the >>remark was made, offender's partner had only one card left in her >>hand? It's still unauthorised that the last card in the hand is a trump (partner may not have known), even if it makes no difference to what happens IMO. I'm not doing anything other than pointing out to the offender that remarks such as this create problems for partner, although in this case no damage can have occured. > Or will you have the TD explain to West what her obligations >>are when considering the logical alternatives to playing the one card >>she has left? > > >No damage (this time), but still UI. >John S. Nichols -- 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 Oct 28 20:32:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:32:49 +1100 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 UAA02486 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:32:40 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F1J00ILP6OJYY@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA28482; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:05 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19981027110420.006b61ec@pop.mindspring.com>; from "Michael S. Dennis" at Oct 27, 98 11:04 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F1J00ILQ6OJYY@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Evert,> > >JP, > > > > Interesting. IMO 45C4a must be applied. But if someone says "I will ruff", > >does that means in this case playing the Spade suit ? It sometimes happens > >that people are confused and think that perhaps club is triumph-suit. I have > >seen this. But this a big exeption. I will tacticly try to check if the > >Eastplayer knew that Spade was trumph and then normally allow East to play > >Spade 7. I suppose it was a mispull. > > ------------ from Mike, > She did not "name or designate a card" as specified in L45C4a. To be > precise, she made a prediction which turned out to be incorrect. > > Mike Dennis -------------- For some reason rule 45C4a also apllies for a card played. I think that mentioning "I will play a trumph card" is a form of designating a card. It is not a direct designating of the suit spade (trumph-suite). But indirect it a designating of spade. It is like adressing a memory location in a computer. You can do it DIRECT bij mentioning the memory location number you want to address or you can do it INDIRECT by mentioning an other memory location and the value of this memory location is the addresnumber of the memory you want. 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 Oct 28 20:38:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:38:44 +1100 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02513 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:38:40 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (p19-m12-wn4.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.101.211]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA08613 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:42:00 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <3610754E.6F1E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:51:10 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: minor penalty card Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor penalty card is played. Argument arose at table about such. Declarer is East and declares in two hearts. South leads medium club taken by north with ace and she leads small club back. Taken by east with King and as south plays the three the two (hidden behind three) falls on table. Put to one side as minor penalty card. East now plays ace spade and small towards king/queen. Wins with king and plays queen discarding loosing club. South now ruffs with small heart. East complains that she thought the minor penalty card had to be played and would not have played that way if she knew otherwise. Law 50D only refers to play of cards of same suit and does not specify that the minor penalty card has to be played at any other point in time thus meaning that it may stay on the table until the last trick. Should not the law be a little specific about when it must or may be played? Or is the ambiguity meant to be. The director ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. Comments please. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 20:55:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:55:27 +1100 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 UAA02554 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:55:21 +1100 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 0zYSNR-0002R0-00; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:58:53 +0100 Message-ID: <3636EAB9.446352F2@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:58:22 +0100 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: three passes????? References: 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: > > > At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : > > 1D -1S - P - P > > 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the > > other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids > > 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids > > cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid > > and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by > > the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid > > and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades > > but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you > > rule???? > > There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not > ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. how can you be sure about this? I think we first have to work out whether there was a bid of 3 spades or not. Opponents say so, but opener did not see. Let's ask openers partner about the bidding. If (s)he did not see a bid of 3 spades either, I will set 3 clubs as final contract. If the 3 spade bid was confirmed, opener still has to bid. > > > Then, somebody should tell LHO that it is not appropriate to pick up her > bidding cards when the auctio is still going on. of course, and he should at least try hard to look very serious telling this. Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 28 21:39:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:39:57 +1100 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 VAA02660 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:39:49 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #29220) with SMTP id <0F1J00KGV9SJDF@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:43:32 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA29163; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:43:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:43:16 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: minor penalty card In-reply-to: <3610754E.6F1E@xtra.co.nz>; from "B A Small" at Sep 28, 98 10:51 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F1J00KGW9SJDF@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, ----------- > Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor > penalty card is played. Argument arose at table about such. Declarer is > East and declares in two hearts. South leads medium club taken by north > with ace and she leads small club back. Taken by east with King and as > south plays the three the two (hidden behind three) falls on table. Put > to one side as minor penalty card. East now plays ace spade and small > towards king/queen. Wins with king and plays queen discarding loosing > club. South now ruffs with small heart. East complains that she thought > the minor penalty card had to be played and would not have played that > way if she knew otherwise. Law 50D only refers to play of cards of same > suit and does not specify that the minor penalty card has to be played > at any other point in time thus meaning that it may stay on the table > until the last trick. Should not the law be a little specific about when > it must or may be played? Or is the ambiguity meant to be. The director > ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of > play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. > > Comments please. > ------------- Why using 50D, in 50C everything is precisely described for the minor penalty card. Rule 50D describes the major penalty card !! No ambiguity. 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 Thu Oct 29 01:22:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:22:45 +1100 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 BAA05504 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:22:38 +1100 Received: from lizard (user-38ld4d8.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.145.168]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12250 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:26:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19981028043629.5cf7293e@mindspring.com> X-Sender: jaycue@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:36:29 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jim Guida Subject: A cute story Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, all...this just happened yesterday in my novice game. Joe Baer's partner made a bid. Elsie, sitting to Joe's left, immediately asked Joe what his partner's bid meant. Joe said to Elsie, "You can't ask that question, it's not your turn!". Elsie's partner Pat now said, "But I can ask you what the bid means." Joe replied, "Yes, Pat, YOU can ask that question." Then turning to Elsie he added, "But you can't listen." Jim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 01:31:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:31:54 +1100 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 BAA05527 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:31:48 +1100 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.241]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 6451000 ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:31:40 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981028093646.007f7180@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:36:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <199810272354.6065600@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >On another track, scripting alerts certainly seems disireable to me -- I >have done it in the past. But, those scripts can serve as a memory aide. >For instance, my partner and I recently inverted the meanings of 1C-1D and >1C-1N. I have forgotten this a few times. If there was a script button >visible I may be more likely to remember our agreements. And, as you will >gather from reading some other threads, I don't believe memory aides should >be permitted in online competition. Ideally, the scripts would be >available only to the opponents. Of course, this may not be practical. Imo, it's clearly desirable that a player who is to be held responsible for the content of an explanation be able to see that his computer has accurately relayed it, but the memory issues are a concern. At present, I'm not convinced there's a perfect solution to this, though a compromise seems not unreasonable. However, as I was thinking this over yesterday evening, it dawned on me that a nearly ideal solution, voice recognition, could possibly be on the horizon. If voice recognition can eventually be integrated into the delivery of accompanying explanations, even the slowest typists should be able to download the appropriate scripts from their brains and to check them for accuracy before delivering them. It is interesting to consider whether direct voice transmission (to the opponents only) might also be feasible. If there are any voice recognition experts out there, perhaps they could comment on whether this is plausible, and how well we might expect voice recognition software of the future to be able to adapt to significant differences in accents, etc. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:16:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:16:54 +1100 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 CAA05919 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:16:48 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-144.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.144]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA11047934 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:22:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <363728CC.171E9D4B@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:23:08 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: three passes????? References: <3636A5C7.BF00A6B2@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, can the other players verify that in fact the 3s call was made. If all the other player verifies that the call was 3S and not pass [L84]. I rule that the 3S call stands and that the pickings up of the bidding cards before the third pass is an infraction, is UI, and was MI and deception [opener could not have seen the 3S call because they picked up their cards] that could have been known at the time to potentially benefit the perpetrator [L75]. I apply a quarter board PP [L90]. That the information about the premature pick up of the cards is UI. The auction is reopened for opener [L21]. I issue a warning that the cards are not to be picked up prior to the end of the auction [bidding box regulations]. Right to appeal. If can not verify the pass or 3S call then rule under L85. I rule that the 3S call stands and that the pickings up of the bidding cards before the third pass is an infraction, is UI, and was MI and deception [opener could not have seen the 3S call because they picked up their cards .] that could have been known at the time to potentially benefit the perpetrator [L75]. I apply a quarter board PP [L90]. The auction is reopened for opener [L21]. I issue a warning that the cards are not to be picked up prior to the end of the auction [bidding box regulations]. Right to appeal. [*] premature picking up of the bidding cards often suggests that the expectation is that the opponent is not strong enough to justify a call. The MI is that the picking up of the cards suggests that in fact LHO passed. The potential benefit is the increased chance that opener will believe that the contract is 3C and allow the contract of 3S rest unmolested without a penalty double or further contesting the auction. The seemingly innocuous violation can have significant ramifications all out of proportion of its simpleness. Roger Pewick Nancy's Desk wrote: > > At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : > 1D -1S - P - P > 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the > other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids > 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids > cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid > and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by > the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid > and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades > but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you > rule???? > > -- > Nancy T. Dressing > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > nancy > > nancy > > Netscape Conference Address > Netscape Conference DLS Server > Additional Information: > Last Name > First Name nancy > Version 2.1 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:39:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:39:51 +1100 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 CAA05958 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:39:45 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id KAA27729 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Oct28.102700.1189.283258; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:44:07 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws) Message-ID: <1998Oct28.102700.1189.283258@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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:44:07 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Bill Segraves[SMTP:bills@cshore.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 9:50 AM To: bridge-laws Cc: bills Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Tim wrote: >>On another track, scripting alerts certainly seems disireable to me -- I >>have done it in the past. But, those scripts can serve as a memory aide. >>For instance, my partner and I recently inverted the meanings of 1C-1D and >>1C-1N. I have forgotten this a few times. If there was a script button >>visible I may be more likely to remember our agreements. And, as you will >>gather from reading some other threads, I don't believe memory aides should >>be permitted in online competition. Ideally, the scripts would be >>available only to the opponents. Of course, this may not be practical. Memory issues are a concern for me as well. I believe that with a VERY limited number of exceptions, the skill set required to excel in competitive online bridge should be as close as possible to the skill set required for face to face play. What this means is that for competitive play, you should not be allowed to consult system note, use computational aides, or reference books. (I do think it is reasonable for the software to prevent mechanical errors such as leads out of turn, insufficient bids, and revokes.) There are a number of possible solutions to this issue. My favored approach is to automate as much of the alert structure as possible. With an automated alert system, where a convention card itself was providing the alert information, there would be no need for script tabs to be visible on the desktop, and hence no memory aides for players. Bill Segraves has just suggested an alternative approach based on voice recognition software. The use of voice recognition software would allow players to trigger an alert string verbally, either by vocalizing the string to be transmitted or alternatively by having the verbal equivalent to "clicking" on an OKScript button. In either of these cases, once again, there would be no visual cue for a player that a bidding sequence had an "unusual" meaning. Considering the size of the install base of PCs NOT equipped with voice recognition software and the fact that many of anticipated low cost internet solutions planned for the future (web TV) do not include support for voice recognition, I believe that its premature to assume that this is a viable avenue to explore immediately. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:43:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:43:54 +1100 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 CAA05977 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:43:49 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lciue.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.206]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA31626 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:47:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981028103616.006be144@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: <001601be021b$6be38d00$422b63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:32 AM 10/28/98 -0000, David Burn wrote: >What about it, indeed. If a player is permitted (and the Laws say so) >to "play" a card by some means other than by taking a card from her >hand and placing it on the table, then the trump is the card that East >"played", regardless of the card that East physically played. Sorry, we are in philosophical accord but disagree about the particulars in this instance. East has not "named or otherwise designated a card to be played". If she had said "I'm going to play my spade", and then played the club, then we could bring L45C4a into play, but she has not done so. Although she was obviously expressing an intention to play a "trump", it is not clear that she intended to play a spade. Nor is there any legal basis for giving her the benefit of the doubt in this instance. Her actions may have been a simple physical mistake, but an equally plausible explanation is that she momentarily blanked on which suit was trumps. >There is a dichotomy here which is relevant to both this question and >the much-debated "LOOT? Revoke?" question. In each case, a player took >out of his/her/its? hand a card that was wholly incompatible with >his/her...OK, their intentions, and put that card in the "played" >position on the table. What it boils down to appears to be this: if >bridge is a sport entirely of the mind, then the card the player >"obviously" meant to play takes precedence, and the "reason(s)" for >which they played or "otherwise designated" some other card which >appeared "by accident" determine its status as, for example, a fifth >card to this trick or a first (joke) card to the next. If, on the >other hand, bridge is a sport in which some degree of physical >co-ordination is required, or at any rate assumed, then the card which >hits the table takes precedence in the context of the physical moment >in which it was played. > >I think that the game would be a great deal easier both to administer >and to play if, as in other sports, we took the view that "what >happened, happened" - regardless of why it might have happened. The Laws have, to a great extent, been written with this objective in mind. The procedures for assessing UI situations, disputed claims, and many others are defined so as to minimize the need for determining mental states and motives. I have frequently stated my opinion that this is a wise and deliberate strategy of the lawmakers, because TD's and AC members are not competent psychics, and because adjudication against objective standards is more likely to be (and to be perceived as) fair. >I would venture to suggest that in every >possible sphere of life, Law 45(c)(4)(a) is always unnecessary, >whatever it may say. > I agree, in general. I think that L45C4a is actually aimed primarily at declarer, since usually declarer is "naming or otherwise designating" cards to be played from dummy. L46 spells out how to deal with ambiguous designation of dummy's cards by declarer, but clearly does not apply to a defender. It seems to me that a fair reading of L45C4a is that when a defender makes an ambiguous designation of a proposed card to be played, that the issue should be dealt with in terms similar to a disputed claim, i.e., that doubtful points should be resolved in favor of the NOS. But a more interesting theoretical problem with L45C4a concerns what should happen when a defender designates a card he proposes to play when he actually doesn't have such a card! Suppose in third position, the defender announces his intention of winning partner's J lead with the A. Before this mythical A hits the table, declarer has naturally followed low (from Kx). It seems completely inequitable to allow the J to win the trick, and yet the Laws seem mute on how to handle the situation. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:46:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:46:21 +1100 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 CAA05992 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:46:15 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-144.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.144]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA11218092 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:51:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36372FB7.8CE9DC9B@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:52:39 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: Card played by defender? References: <3.0.1.32.19981027105916.006afe04@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think there is a case for permitting the change if the corrected [voiced indication] card hits the table without pause for thought. Otherwise, Does it not become a case of two cards played to the same trick? The first one to hit the table is the one that belongs to the trick [it was otherwise legally played, L45A, wasn't it] and the one that was voiced is an exposed card since it is compulsory to play it. Roger Pewick Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 10:59 AM 10/27/98 +0000, Jan wrote: > >Sorry, the first message was empty... > >Here goes again: > > > >The contract is 2 spades by South, who has made six tricks until > >now. > > > > s - > > h K > > d J > > c - > >s - s 7 > >h QJ h - > >d - d - > >c - c 7 > > s 9 > > h 3 > > d - > > c - > > > >West plays the queen of hearts, king from dummy. > >"I ruff", says East, and plays..... the 7 of clubs! > >Is she allowed to replace this? > > > "Bow wow", says the TD, and no, she may not. > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:52:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:52:43 +1100 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 CAA06012 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:52:37 +1100 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 KAA09247 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:56:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA19051 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810281556.KAA19051@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: minor penalty card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B A Small > Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor > penalty card is played. It is 50C, and it doesn't seem ambiguous at all. The player can play any card at any time _except_ must not play any deuce through nine of the penalty card suit until the penalty card is played. The player is always free to play a different suit or any honor in the penalty card suit (subject to the requirement to follow suit, of course). > as south plays the three the two (hidden behind three) falls on table. Don't forget the UI implications. If the two had not been shown, the three might have been taken to be a small card or perhaps South's only card in the suit. > The director > ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of > play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. East is not expected to understand the laws; the TD is expected to explain them. If the TD considers his explanation to have been inadequate, he should rule under L82C. If he considers his explanation to have been completely clear, then indeed there is no reason to adjust. The TD's ruling is, of course, appealable. (Grattan: Should L21A say "call or play" instead of "call?") From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 02:59:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:59:53 +1100 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 CAA06036 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:59:46 +1100 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 LAA08859 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:03:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA19072 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810281603.LAA19072@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played by defender? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > But a more interesting theoretical problem with L45C4a concerns what should > happen when a defender designates a card he proposes to play when he > actually doesn't have such a card! Suppose in third position, the defender > announces his intention of winning partner's J lead with the A. Before this > mythical A hits the table, declarer has naturally followed low (from Kx). > It seems completely inequitable to allow the J to win the trick, and yet > the Laws seem mute on how to handle the situation. L72B1? Or you might use L47D, but I don't think it is clear that it applies. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:08:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:08:22 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f172.hotmail.com [207.82.251.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA06122 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:08:15 +1100 Received: (qmail 4798 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Oct 1998 16:11:35 -0000 Message-ID: <19981028161135.4796.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:11:35 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A cute story Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:11:35 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Guida wrote: >Hello, all...this just happened yesterday in my novice game. > >Joe Baer's partner made a bid. Elsie, sitting to Joe's left, immediately >asked Joe what his partner's bid meant. Joe said to Elsie, "You can't ask >that question, it's not your turn!". Elsie's partner Pat now said, "But I >can ask you what the bid means." Joe replied, "Yes, Pat, YOU can ask that >question." Then turning to Elsie he added, "But you can't listen." > >Jim > This is indeed quite an amusing story, but shouldn't novices be dealing with the complexities of bidding and playing without the further confusion of the letter of the law being added? I know that you don't want to breed bad habits, but surely Bridge is hard enough to learn as it is. In my day we concentrated on following the rules, not the laws. They came later (although some of us are still learning them, day to day!) > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:29:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:29:10 +1100 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 DAA06217 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:29:02 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-176.access.net.il [192.116.198.176]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA24017; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:32:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <363746FC.7A59DB1F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:31:56 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Reg Busch CC: Christian Bernscherer , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <3.0.1.32.19981027105326.006ef57c@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I "got up" late for this thread but I think is my duty to emphasize some laws' applications : 1. This case is about <> not about <> -> only Law 69 involved , nothing to do with law 70 !!! 2. Law 69A is very clear - the "regular" acquiescense can't be withdrawn after the acquiescent side made a call to the next board (or the round ends ,there is no board to play anymore). 3. Law 69B discusses about unacceptable acquiescense , which are discovered during the legal period defined in Law 79C; an example is the aquiescence of 6H made when one opponent has KQJ of trump or the declarer conceded one trick , when he had Ax in hand opposite Kx in dummy ................etc. 4. The AC is allowed to examine and decide if a play is irrational or inferior - it is a bridge decision. But in our case the TD should tell and emphasize for the AC law 69B : that the AC is allowed to check and decide if there is no "total dumb" to loose a trick , but they are not allowed to check for "irrational" or 'inferior" . I like to use brains (accordingly with Law 99 !!!) but in this case we should use first "pay attention to understand the problem". Back to work folks Dany Reg Busch wrote: > > At 20:43 22/10/98 +0200, you wrote: > >Last Tuesday my team (I was not playing that evening) got the following > ruling: > (snipped) > > They called the TD who stated that it was too late to withdraw > >the aquiescence. But afterwards the AC ruled that they were in time and > changed the score to 3NT -1. > > > In all the discussion on this thread, nobody seems to have raised the point > that bothers me. The AC's decision was illegal, because they were > overruling the TD on a point of Law. The TD ruled (wrongly) under Law that > the withdrawal of acquiescence was out of time. The AC ruled (correctly) > under Law that it was in time. But the AC was not entitled to overrule the > TD. Unless, of course, they had persuaded him to change his ruling. > > Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:29:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:29:56 +1100 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 DAA06231 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:29:48 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-176.access.net.il [192.116.198.176]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA24377; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:33:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36374749.F9E4F388@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:33:13 +0200 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: BLML (Was: Re: LOOT? revoke?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First - Richard's e-mail is one of the best article I read. My opinion is that there should be a public forum with two aims : 1. To inform the WBFLC about troubles implementing the laws. 2. To get some advises about promulgators' intentions , specific problems etc... Today - as much as I know , the BLML is the only existing forum where its members try to discuss the issues above . There is no doubt - here are many , too many for most of us , messages , but i disagree with Richard at this percentage - I believe that less than 10% are relevant for every person.......... As a manager I have to chair meetings when from time to time there are more than 25 persons - 90% of them deliver usually less than 5% of the data and the suggestions for the best decisions for every issue - but my experience taught me for 1/4 of century that even one good idea/suggestion/sparkling/etc once a year , paid it for our suffering to be there and listen to all those "......." ( try to be polite). I suggest that the WBFLC's should learn from it , filtering as clever as possible the items for their duties. Thank you all for reading this "useless" suggestion (included in the 95% of nuts and coconuts.......) Dany Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >There is no > > >practical, moral, or legal ground for deeming it so - nobody, except a > > >bridge lawyer, would begin to contemplate that it could be so. As I > > >have said before, the real trouble with our game is that this mailing > > >list exists, for it is even more out of touch with reality than the > > >Laws themselves. > > > > I have asked a question because someone has written to me asking it. > > All well and good, although in this particular case my initial > reaction was to look at L45E, decide this was trivial (Director > decides, table information needed) and ignore the subject. This > was so long ago that I've forgotten the details. > > >From time to time I revisit the thread, because one that goes > on so long is presumably not about a trivial matter. But whenever > I return, nothing has changed. There are debates about the wording > of the Laws. This is fine, but why L45E brings this up is beyond me. > Yes, the Laws could have made it such that the director has no > decision to make, but that's not relevant. I do not see how L45E > can be misinterpreted. > > The thread has degenerated into a debate as to whether BLML is > worthwhile at this point. Some personal beliefs: > > 1. BLML is worthwhile. Among the noise generated in what is > essentially an unmoderated but spam-free newsgroup of parties > who are at least interested enough to join up is much information > that is of interest and importance to those who > a: have practical reason to need interpretations (Directors) > b: have an interest in rules and regulations of the game they > play (people like me who sometimes bug their sponsoring > organization about how the game is run) > c: are organizers, and get the occasional insight as to why running > a game in way X is theoretically better than way Y. Off-topic > subjects (they aren't Laws) but useful stuff anyway. > > 2. BLML often over-rates its own importance. There have been at > least two occasions when it (or a number of its subscribers) > has tried to assert that it should be a recognized influence > on the WBFLC, and another when it was suggested it should be > compulsory reading for Directors. It should be neither. > > Because some members of the WBFLC are aware of BLML, matters > will be raised that might cause the WBFLC to take notice. Fine: > anything that is debated here might well be of importance, and > at least Grattan filters and presents. I can understand that > the WBFLC might well get annoyed at some of the decisions it > is asked to make as a result, especially when BLML tried to > assert that the WBFLC was not the appropriate body to interpret > its own decisions. > > It might be useful for directors to look at some of the material > on the list, but it is very time-consuming to do so. I don't keep > statistics, but I now get at least 300 pieces of e-mail a week. This > mailing list supplies probably more than half of it. That is enough > for me to consider uns*bscribing for that reason alone. If I were > a Director (I'm not) there is perhaps 25% of that volume that would > be of practical interest, and that information I should be getting > from my Sponsoring Organization. Training courses would be a _far_ > more productive use of my time (again, assuming I were a director.) > > David Burn has a reasonable but oversimplified view: the existence of > BLML is a clear indication of what is wrong with the game. For most > people who play, most of the time there is nothing wrong with the game. > As with any other game there are times when an official makes a bad > decision. So be it. Because (unlike most other organized sports and > games) we do not have an official watching all the time, and we can > defer decisions, we can have Appeals Committees. Whether we should, > or who should be on them, is a different matter, but the nature of > the game is _not_ the same as soccer, golf, or even chess. The way > of applying the rules _has_ to be different in a game where > communication between team members is required but restricted. Unless > ther is an official at every table we are stuck with disagreements > on matters of fact and hence appeals. > > The purpose of BLML (in my view) is a meeting ground not for Lawyers, > but for Law professors and students of the law. Inevitably, some of > those who are disparagingly known as "Bridge Lawyers" will join in. > > > [snip] > > > One of the saddest things is that the people who have decided to argue > > in this way over the last three months are all people who can argue a > > case excellently. May I suggest in future you do so and not resort to > > other tactics? > > Agreed, but in any debate tempers will rise. > > Enough rambling. There's the rest of my breakfast to eat! > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > > > -- > Richard Lighton |"Visit the poor, by all means, and give them tea and > (lighton@idt.net)| barley-water, but don't do it as if you were admin- > Wood-Ridge NJ | istering a bowl of deadly nightshade. It upsets them." > USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:41:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:24 +1100 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 DAA06296 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:11 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYYiN-0003K2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:18:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2penatlycards In-Reply-To: <363635B7.5FE3@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: >I apologize for my mistakes, but I don't speak english and I try to >write with one hand, the dictionnary french-english in the other ! Don't worry, we have lots of people posting here whose English is not very good . >About penalty cards, I think you agree with me : if you have 2 or >more penalty cards law 50 does not applied. You have to apply >law 51 like I read it in law 50 D 2 (a) ok? No, L51 is additional to L50. There is no suggestion that L50 does not apply. >Well, law 51 says: "when a defender has two or more penalty cards in one >suit (b) if the declarer prohibits the lead of that suit >the defender picks up every card in that suit and make any legal >play to the trick" .Final point >Look that law 51 does not say "prohibition applies for as long as >he retains ( the defender) the lead" like in law 50 when you have only >one penalty card. It could have been worded so as to make this point clearer, but in fact it is unambiguous: it does not say he may prohibit the lead, it says *If* he prohibits the lead ... , so you have to go back to L50 to find out about prohibiting the lead. So the prohibition does last for as long as the player retains the lead. >Is it worst to have only one penalty card than two?? No. >Oh, Shakespeare, I beg your pardon.. No matter. J'ai plaisir de vous voir. [Mon francais est tres mal.] Avez-vous de chats [ou chiens]? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:41:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:27 +1100 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 DAA06295 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYYiM-0003K0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:44:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:02:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: minor penalty card In-Reply-To: <3610754E.6F1E@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor >penalty card is played. Argument arose at table about such. Declarer is >East and declares in two hearts. South leads medium club taken by north >with ace and she leads small club back. Taken by east with King and as >south plays the three the two (hidden behind three) falls on table. Put >to one side as minor penalty card. East now plays ace spade and small >towards king/queen. Wins with king and plays queen discarding loosing >club. South now ruffs with small heart. East complains that she thought >the minor penalty card had to be played and would not have played that >way if she knew otherwise. Law 50D only refers to play of cards of same >suit and does not specify that the minor penalty card has to be played >at any other point in time thus meaning that it may stay on the table >until the last trick. Should not the law be a little specific about when >it must or may be played? Or is the ambiguity meant to be. The director >ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of >play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. L50C is perfectly clear, and L50D is nothing to do with a minor penalty card. Where things went wrong at your table is that the TD did not apparently do his job. When the TD was called: 1 He should give South a choice between playing the two or the three under L58B2. 2 Assuming that South chooses the three, he designates the two as a Minor Penalty card. 3 He explains to the table that this means [a] South may not play any other small club before playing the two [b] However, South may play a club honour or a card of another suit in preference to playing the club two [c] There are no lead penalties [d] North may not take any inference from knowing that South has the club two: such knowledge is unauthorised 4 After all this, and not before, the TD allows play to continue, remaining at the table until the minor penalty card is disposed of. If the TD failed to do all of this then the TD was at fault, and you have a valid cause for complaint. If [perish the thought!] the TD was not called then everyone got what they deserve - an unnecessary argument. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 03:41:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:26 +1100 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 DAA06298 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYYiO-0003K3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:18:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Owing to yet another crash there may be additions or amendments missing. Anyone who sent anything betweem 13/10 and 26/10 please resend. Hi Demeter, Norman. Nice to see you! 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 Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch 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 Thu Oct 29 03:41:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:25 +1100 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 DAA06297 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:41:11 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYYiM-0003K1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:44:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:09:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: three passes????? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: > >> At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : >> 1D -1S - P - P >> 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the >> other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids >> 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids >> cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid >> and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by >> the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid >> and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades >> but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you >> rule???? > >There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not >ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. There is doubt, and there is one *very* strong piece of evidence. Opener's LHO, who alleges that he bid 3S, picked his cards up after two passes. I rule the contract as 3C. I tell him that I am doing so because he picked his cards up after two more passes and that means I *know* he passed. >Then, somebody should tell LHO that it is not appropriate to pick up her >bidding cards when the auctio is still going on. He'll learn better from a ruling against him that he thoroughly deserves. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 04:22:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:22:47 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f230.hotmail.com [207.82.251.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA06528 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:22:40 +1100 Received: (qmail 12739 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Oct 1998 17:26:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19981028172601.12738.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 199.166.210.221 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:26:00 PST X-Originating-IP: [199.166.210.221] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A cute story Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:26:00 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Norman Scorbie" >Jim Guida wrote: > >>Hello, all...this just happened yesterday in my novice game. >> >>Joe Baer's partner made a bid. Elsie, sitting to Joe's left, >>immediately asked Joe what his partner's bid meant. Joe said to >>Elsie, "You can't ask that question, it's not your turn!". Elsie's >>partner Pat now said, "But I can ask you what the bid means." Joe >>replied, "Yes, Pat, YOU can ask that question." Then turning to >>Elsie he added, "But you can't listen." > >This is indeed quite an amusing story, but shouldn't novices be dealing >with the complexities of bidding and playing without the further >confusion of the letter of the law being added? I know that you don't >want to breed bad habits, but surely Bridge is hard enough to learn as >it is. In my day we concentrated on following the rules, not the laws. >They came later (although some of us are still learning them, day to >day!) > It looks like Joe has already developed a bad habit...unless there is a lot of humour in Joe's voice that I am not hearing. It is *not* your responsibility (or right, either) to educate your opponents with nasty comments - and especially when you're not correct. It is your responsibility to call the director, and let her educate your opponents. As far as I can tell, it's not that Elsie can't listen to Pat's question; it's that Pat can't ask if her only purpose is to give the answer to her partner. Or am I wrong? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 07:16:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:16:48 +1100 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 HAA06824 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:16:40 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA29166 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:19:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.78) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029014; Wed Oct 28 14:18:19 1998 Received: by har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0286.1744A340@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:17:35 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0286.1744A340@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Card played by defender? Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:13:23 -0500 Encoding: 83 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] At 02:32 AM 10/28/98 -0000, David Burn wrote: >What about it, indeed. If a player is permitted (and the Laws say so) >to "play" a card by some means other than by taking a card from her >hand and placing it on the table, then the trump is the card that East >"played", regardless of the card that East physically played. (MD)Sorry, we are in philosophical accord but disagree about the particulars in this instance. (CS) I wonder if David B is clearly right that the Laws say so. If one omits the headings, which are not part of the laws, L45C4a seems to be a continuation of the discussion of designations by declarer from dummy, defender's actions having been discussed somewhat earlier. It certainly serves no useful purpose and conveys UI for a defender to verbally designate the card he intends to play (even if the UI is not useful and becomes moot the instant the card is actually played). (Exceptions for the handicapped of course) I wonder if this is intended to permit an alternate means of playing for a defender...it seems pointless, as the card still has to be detached from the hand and placed face up upon the table. Actually when a defender names a card as being in his hand (L49) it becomes a penalty card in most cases. However since this is a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress the footnote to L68 appears to apply: no penalty card but UI (L16) and L57A premature play may apply. While neither seem to invoke any penalty or restriction in the instant case, is it excessive to believe that the intent of the lawmakers may NOT have been to make a defender's play to the current trick by voice be a normal or even licit action? (Grattan, Ton, and one might hope some lurkers KNOW...I admit I don't...but that's why I am here...to learn.) (MD) East has not "named or otherwise designated a card to be played". If she had said "I'm going to play my spade", and then played the club, then we could bring L45C4a into play, but she has not done so. Although she was obviously expressing an intention to play a "trump", it is not clear that she intended to play a spade. Nor is there any legal basis for giving her the benefit of the doubt in this instance. Her actions may have been a simple physical mistake, but an equally plausible explanation is that she momentarily blanked on which suit was trumps. (snip) . I think that L45C4a is actually aimed primarily at declarer, since usually declarer is "naming or otherwise designating" cards to be played from dummy. L46 spells out how to deal with ambiguous designation of dummy's cards by declarer, but clearly does not apply to a defender. It seems to me that a fair reading of L45C4a is that when a defender makes an ambiguous designation of a proposed card to be played, that the issue should be dealt with in terms similar to a disputed claim, i.e., that doubtful points should be resolved in favor of the NOS. (CS)Are we correct in even assuming that L45C4a supersedes L45A? While the card named presumably must be played, the card detached from hand and faced on the table HAS been played. That it was the wrong card and not what the player meant to play does not change the fact that it has been played. The card named was required to be played...but could that mean subsequent to a card which is actually played? Had the player not spoken, and the wrong card simply fallen out of the hand (or been played in error) it would be the played card. Do the laws intend to reward gratuitous comments as to a defender's intent by letting them prevent that defender's careless errors from costing him? (MD)But a more interesting theoretical problem with L45C4a concerns what should happen when a defender designates a card he proposes to play when he actually doesn't have such a card! Suppose in third position, the defender announces his intention of winning partner's J lead with the A. Before this mythical A hits the table, declarer has naturally followed low (from Kx). It seems completely inequitable to allow the J to win the trick, and yet the Laws seem mute on how to handle the situation. (CS)How about L73F2? (CS) Also in reference to a prior poster's suggestion that this might be a claim, it does not refer to a trick other than the one currently in progress, so is not a claim. L68preface. (But as someone else suggested showing BOTH cards WOULD probably have been deemed a claim) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 08:30:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:30:18 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (www.icaan.org [207.227.70.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA07020 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:30:12 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zYdEC-001b6cC; Wed, 28 Oct 98 16:34 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:34:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: A cute story Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <19981028172601.12738.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_16721494==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_16721494==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:26 PM 10/28/98 , Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >>From: "Norman Scorbie" > >>Jim Guida wrote: >> >>>Hello, all...this just happened yesterday in my novice game. >>> >>>Joe Baer's partner made a bid. Elsie, sitting to Joe's left, >>>immediately asked Joe what his partner's bid meant. Joe said to >>>Elsie, "You can't ask that question, it's not your turn!". Elsie's >>>partner Pat now said, "But I can ask you what the bid means." Joe >>>replied, "Yes, Pat, YOU can ask that question." Then turning to >>>Elsie he added, "But you can't listen." >> > <> > >As far as I can tell, it's not that Elsie can't listen to Pat's >question; it's that Pat can't ask if her only purpose is to >give the answer to her partner. Or am I wrong? > No, actually it's the other way around. Elsie can't ask when it's not her turn because to do so will give Pat information that she should not have (unless Pat herself thinks to ask the question). Elsie can always ask when it is her turn to bid and that will always be soon enough if it is Elsie that needs the information. John S. Nichols --=====================_16721494==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 05:26 PM 10/28/98 , Michael Farebrother wrote:
>
>
>>From: "Norman Scorbie" <normanscorbie@hotmail.com>
>
>>Jim Guida wrote:
>>
>>>Hello, all...this just happened yesterday in my novice game.
>>>
>>>Joe Baer's partner made a bid.  Elsie, sitting to Joe's left,
>>>immediately asked Joe what his partner's bid meant.  Joe said to
>>>Elsie, "You can't ask that question, it's not your turn!".  Elsie's
>>>partner Pat now said, "But I can ask you what the bid means."  Joe
>>>replied, "Yes, Pat, YOU can ask that question."  Then turning to
>>>Elsie he added, "But you can't listen."
>>
>       <<clip>>
>
>As far as I can tell, it's not that Elsie can't listen to Pat's
>question; it's that Pat can't ask if her only purpose is to
>give the answer to her partner.  Or am I wrong?
>

No, actually it's the other way around.

Elsie can't ask when it's not her turn because to do so will give Pat information that she should not have (unless Pat herself thinks to ask the question).  Elsie can always ask when it is her turn to bid and that will always be soon enough if it is Elsie that needs the information.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_16721494==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 08:31:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:31:35 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07040 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:31:29 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:59:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp20-252.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.252] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:59:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <363812E7.8C9@wanadoo.fr> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:01:59 -0800 From: Claude DADOUN Reply-To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr Organization: FFB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 [fr] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2penatlycards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not agree with David Stevenson In my opinion we should not considere than L51 is incomplete. L50 send to L51 not the opposit. L51 2.b does say he may prohibit the lead and that is all. So I think than the probihition should not remain in case of 2 penalty cards. Claude Dadoun From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 09:04:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:04:50 +1100 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 JAA07151 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:04:39 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h17.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA01083; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:08:26 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36383EC2.7CB1@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:09:06 -0800 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: clear rules Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_8.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_8.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) There happened in two different thread very similar thoughts: Sergey wrote: "Summoning the Director is not normal in other sports and it is one more different between bridge and another sport game. Steve describes this situation in ice hockey in his first letter of clear rules." Richard wrote: "Because (unlike most other organized sports and games) we do not have an official watching all the time, and we can defer decisions, we can have Appeals Committees. Whether we should, or who should be on them, is a different matter, but the nature of the game is _not_ the same as soccer, golf, or even chess. The way of applying the rules _has_ to be different in a game where communication between team members is required but restricted. Unless three is an official at every table we are stuck with disagreements on matters of fact and hence appeals." And one may add - bridge is almost the only kind of a sport (more exact - we call it a sport) without persistent control of TD. Others are chess and draughts during tournaments with great number of participants. But their rules are simple and clear - type 1 almost in 100%. Both authors are right: absence of TDs at every playing table is the reason of a most our problems... And if it is admissible at club games - it becomes absolutely inadmissibly at championships... Such an absence is relict of rubber bridge - with a lot of accompanying conclusions. Depending on TD's understanding of these conclusions he (the TD) may make his job during the session passively (sitting at his table and waiting for a call) or actively (being all the time in the thick of contest's things, seeing all the incidents in embryo, trying to get to know every fact with his own eyes and ears). We discussed this theme at thread "Active/passive TD-ship" For my opinion - at club level the main TD's task is to make game as comfortable for players as it's possible. The Legend and the Laws - both rules there. The near contest to championship - the more sportish it should be. The Laws (but rather not current - they should be re-write with making them more sportish), the Regulations rules there even before the Legend. Even maybe - on account of players' comfort: championship... Sergey wrote: "Let's suppose that TD have seen failure to follow suit (in common case - any irregularity) but no one player call attention to it and no one summoning the Director." DVS commented: "The TD would do well not to be in a position to see such a revoke unless his duties require him to be there. He should not, for example, casually watch bridge being played while he is a TD. So, let us suppose he sees a revoke when he is at the table for some other reason - perhaps to deal with a contested claim." Such a position about TD's function is one more relict of rubber bridge. Passive TD-ship brings problems even at club level. For example - because the number of incidents with non-agreed facts might be essentially less in case of active TD-ship, when "TDs casually watch bridge". And where in the Laws is written that TDs "should not casually watch"?:) On the contrary - not casually watching provides to impossibility to execute TD's obligation under L81C6... For my opinion - TDs used to such a passivity, it makes their job more comfortable - on the account of players... Sergey wrote: "What must TD do? May be next: L81C6 could be used and TD (L83) starts the appeal procedure." DVS commented: "L81C6 is correct: he is required to act on the revoke because he has become aware of it. L83 is not: this is a ruling situation, not an appeal situation. He just gives a ruling." Well - I guess that Sergey used rather not clear wording. If I understood him - Sergey meant (he made it more clear in the next indention) that in such cases TD should - after board would be over - rule: for NOS result stood, for OS - result should be adjust in accordance with corresponding law (about happened infraction), in order to redress OS's advantage (L72B1) in compare with the field. And after his ruling he (TD) should himself start appeal procedure - if no players complaints. And it is AC that has enough power (L12C3) for approving such ruling. That means that DVS remark is right. But I guess that after this explanation his disagreement will be even more strong:) Sergey wrote: "AC (L12C3 for protecting the field ) awards non-balance adjusted score - for NOS as it was in the board, for OS - in order to L64C (in common case - in order to do equity). In team play AC has no problem with protecting the field and there are no adjusted score." DVS commented: "There is no such thing as "protecting the field" where simple rulings are concerned." Rather doubtful position: simple rulings may be so protecting the field as disturbing it. At the end of his post Sergey wrote: "Well, do anyone thinks that during the life of all our cats (and dogs, of course) we: - must re-write rules supposing that there will be one Director for one table?; - must re-write rules supposing that TD must notice all irregularity?; - must re-write rules supposing that TD must call attention to irregularity and correct it during the play? So, it will be another bridge, but may be it will be clear sport rules?" And these questions are real problems. Now we have thread about online bridge - these questions should be answered in it. Moreover - it's my opinion that only presence of TD at every table may provide to establishing rules of type 1 at most infractions and conflicts during the game. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 09:06:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:06:48 +1100 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 JAA07176 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:06:43 +1100 Received: from mike (1Cust103.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.103]) by smtp1.mailsrvcs.net with ESMTP id QAA02200 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:10:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002001be033d$83bf6700$6769ffd0@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: Subject: Re: minor penalty card Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 05:09:49 -0800 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 David Stevenson wrote: snip > Where things went wrong at your table is that the TD did not >apparently do his job. When the TD was called: > >1 He should give South a choice between playing the two or the three >under L58B2. > >2 Assuming that South chooses the three, he designates the two as a >Minor Penalty card. > >3 He explains to the table that this means >[a] South may not play any other small club before playing the two >[b] However, South may play a club honour or a card of another suit in >preference to playing the club two >[c] There are no lead penalties >[d] North may not take any inference from knowing that South has the >club two: such knowledge is unauthorised > Sorry if this seems obvious but when the 2 of clubs is played, may North disregard the signal that would be given by a freely played card or must he base his defense on the assumption that the two shows whatever count or attitude the partnership agrees? North is not allowed to know South has the 2 of clubs but when it is played may he know that its play was constrained? Mike Dodson From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 12:00:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:00:44 +1100 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 MAA07666 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:00:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYgVo-0001cR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:17:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: minor penalty card In-Reply-To: <199810281556.KAA19051@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >(Grattan: Should L21A say "call or play" instead of "call?") Well, my name is not Grattan, but presumably I am allowed to reply. Law 21 deals with the auction. It would be inappropriate for L21A to say call or play, not because it would be unreasonable, but because it would be misplaced. Under the previous law book there were errors in how they dealt with misinformation during the play [you could change a play after MI if you felt like it, for example]. In 1997 they tried to catch up. They did not get as far as putting a L21A lookalike in the Play section [L47E3 or L47E2C] - perhaps they might have. However, while it is nice to see it explicitly stated, I believe it is implicit in the wording of L47E and L40C. Now, you will immediately point out that L40C includes the play period: yes it does. However, L40 is really a Law in limbo, being between the auction laws [up to 39] and the play laws [starting at 41]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 13:00:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:00:04 +1100 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 MAA07842 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:59:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYhRD-0005Af-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:03:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:11:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: minor penalty card In-Reply-To: <002001be033d$83bf6700$6769ffd0@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >Sorry if this seems obvious but when the 2 of clubs is played, >may North disregard the signal that would be given by a freely played card >or must he >base his defense on the assumption that the two shows whatever count or >attitude the >partnership agrees? North is not allowed to know South has the 2 of clubs >but when it is >played may he know that its play was constrained? I believe this is right. After all, the TD's ruling is surely AI! L50C refers to "the information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous and unauthorised" but I do not believe the the knowledge that it must be played is UI, since that is based on the ruling. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 13:00:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:00:04 +1100 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 MAA07841 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:59:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYhRD-0005Ag-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:03:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:18:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: clear rules In-Reply-To: <36383EC2.7CB1@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > DVS commented: > "The TD would do well not to be in a position to see such > a revoke unless his duties require him to be there. He should > not, for example, casually watch bridge being played while > he is a TD. > So, let us suppose he sees a revoke when he is at the table for > some other reason - perhaps to deal with a contested claim." > > Such a position about TD's function is one more relict of > rubber bridge. Passive TD-ship brings problems even at club > level. For example - because the number of incidents with > non-agreed facts might be essentially less in case of active > TD-ship, when "TDs casually watch bridge". And where > in the Laws is written that TDs "should not casually watch"?:) It is basic training for TDs rather than the Laws. I am happy that TDs should casually watch the play so long as there are sufficient TDs to watch at every table, naturally at least two per table with screens. In the normal arrangement it would be a most biased and unfair move to watch at a table casually chosen thus providing the benefit of active TDing at that table and not at the others. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 13:14:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:14:34 +1100 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 NAA07920 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:14:28 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-24.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.54]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA09552 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:18:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3637D064.EFD188D8@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:18:12 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: minor penalty card References: <0F1J00KGW9SJDF@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------F7829C424669B9AC96CF77A1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------F7829C424669B9AC96CF77A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > Hi, > ----------- > > Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor > > penalty card is played. Argument arose at table about such. (snip) > > Should not the law be a little specific about when > > it must or may be played? Or is the ambiguity meant to be. The director > > ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of > > play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. > > > > Comments please. > > > ------------- > Why using 50D, in 50C everything is precisely described for the minor penalty > card. Rule 50D describes the major penalty card !! > No ambiguity. > > Evert. > > -- > Law 50 D talks about the disposition of a minor penalty card and I think 50 C > states that it becomes a major penalty card if any other suit is played. Are > we in an interpretation bind again?? -- Nancy T. Dressing --------------F7829C424669B9AC96CF77A1 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for nancy Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: nancy n: ;nancy email;internet: nancy@pinehurst.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------F7829C424669B9AC96CF77A1-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 15:29:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:29:43 +1100 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 PAA08250 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:29:35 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcit5.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.165]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18930 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:33:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981028233010.006be604@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:30:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: three passes????? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:09 PM 10/28/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: >> >>> At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : >>> 1D -1S - P - P >>> 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the >>> other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids >>> 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids >>> cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid >>> and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by >>> the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid >>> and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades >>> but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you >>> rule???? >> >>There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not >>ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. > > There is doubt, and there is one *very* strong piece of evidence. >Opener's LHO, who alleges that he bid 3S, picked his cards up after two >passes. I rule the contract as 3C. I tell him that I am doing so >because he picked his cards up after two more passes and that means I >*know* he passed. > > He'll learn better from a ruling against him that he thoroughly >deserves. > This seems wrong to me. Couldn't we ask the players at the table whether 3S was bid or not? Clearly two of them disagree, and if the matter breaks down as 2-2, then I agree with David's ruling. But I think it rather more likely that 3 of the players will agree that either 3S was bid or the putative bidder passed. In the latter case, obviously the contract is 3C. But if 3S _was_ bid, then Henk's solution is the only equitable, legal approach. David's haste to rule without seeking the relevant facts is so uncharacteristic that I think his response may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek. If not, then to make a ruling based on a demonstrably incorrect fact set is an abuse of directorial discretion, carried out, in this instance, for the apparent purpose of teaching this player a lesson. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 16:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:38:56 +1100 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 QAA08387 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:38:47 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA10866 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:42:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: clear rules Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:38:14 -0800 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 More on ACBL masterpoint awards, so be ready with the delete button! G. R. Bower wrote: > Matchpointing across the field seems on the whole to be better than within > sections. However, in my experience, most C players dislike it. Why? For > every "my 48% would have been a 52% if I had been in a different section" > complaint, there will be three "I was first in C in my section but because > the A players in my section were so good NONE of us got a session award" > complaints. This is partly because only C players who carefuly comb all > the other recap sheets make the former complaint. And, of course, the > latter complaint becomes less common among more experienced players. > Not sure I understand all that, but here's an additional piece of information: Our last one-session unit game, two 13-table stratified sections, was matchpointed across the field. The total number of masterpoints awarded came to 45+. If the sections had been scored separately, the total would have been 52+, quite a difference. Moreover, the overall rankings would have been shuffled a bit, including a different overall winner! This doesn't seem right. Why should 26 tables of players in a pair event earn different amounts of masterpoints based on whether matchpointing is across-the-field or by sections? Steve Willner explained the masterpoint difference to me: "Section awards are proportional to (N+10), where N is the number of tables. So two 13-table sections pay 2*23*(other factors), while a single 26-table section pays 36*(other factors) or 36/46 times as much. Roughly 30% of the pairs get awards either way, but roundoff again favors the smaller group. There are some other factors favoring the large group, but they are smaller. The overall awards, ranked among 52 pairs, are the same either way." Of course a pair gets section award(s) or overall award, whichever is greater, not both. Jim Guida tells me that the usual practice for large flighted events here in the Southwest U.S. is to score the A flight across the field, but B/C by sections, so that B & C players will get the extra masterpoints. (That's local option, not a set ACBL policy.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 19:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:48:37 +1100 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 TAA08701 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:48:31 +1100 Received: from ms01-96.ott.istar.ca (default) [137.186.208.96] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0zYnob-0005zt-00; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:52:21 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:53:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Playing under ACBL rules: S - K6532 Dealer: S H - Kx Vul: N/S D - Kxx C - J87 S - QT84 S - J H - QJxx H - 97x D - Txx D - Qxxx C - Tx C - AQ9xx S - A97 H - AT8x D - AJx C - Kxx S W N E ================= 1D* P 1H* P 1N* P 2D* P 3N* P P P 1D - unbalanced with long D or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor 1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) 1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D 2D - GF Stayman 3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 OL: S4 W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be 'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified distribution). Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the system). Would you let the result stand? Would you give NS a PP? If so, would this accrue to E/W? Can you back this up with law numbers? Thanks for the input. Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 20:06:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:06:45 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA08725 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:06:39 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-10.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.106]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA29058; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:10:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <363830EB.1E44BF61@idt.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:10:03 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: clear rules References: <199810230715.AAA10276@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <363d0adb.10570239@post12.tele.dk> <36322B1D.9F544A5C@idt.net> <363429D3.A2EC8957@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why thank you, Jan. It's seems a real distinction to me that I am capable of "total" anything! I cannot, and will not try, to provide supporting evidence, since it would be anecdotal in nature anyway, and therefore not convincing for someone as "sensible" as yourself. The basis for my assertion may lie in my recollection of player's reactions to smaller fields. I think I can say, without being totally nonsensical, that most people prefer bigger fields to smaller fields; three and four board movements are probably symptomatic of that condition. That playing more boards against each opponent is a fairer test of bridge ability is incontrovertable; I was not speaking for "strong, serious" players in my comment, just "players." I think it is also incontrovertable that "strong, serious" players are a distinct minority of the bridge population, and their preferences are likely to be non-representative of the total population's feelings. That being the case, your comment is something of a non-sequitur. Irv Jan Kamras wrote: > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > Jesper: I believe the answers to your questions lies in the economics > > of the situation, and the fact that most players do NOT like to play in > > small fields. If we had (say) three sections, with the split 7-4-4, > > then the B and C players would be segregated in a 12 table sections, > > playing a three board movement, and the A players would probably be in > > two sections, with three board movements. It turns out players strongly > > prefer a two board movement. > > I frankly beleive this is total nonsense, and will continue to so > beleive until you provide some supporting evidence to prove this > assertion. > >From my experience strong, serious, players would rather play 4 boards > each against 7 of their peers, than 2 each against 14 pairs of wildly > differing strength. Come to think of it, many would even prefer 7 boards > each against 4 of their peers, if that would result in better, fairer, > competitive bridge. > > Dissenting opinions I dismiss as ACBL marketing of their "schmoints". > Nothing wrong in that, as long as one calls a spade a spade! :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 20:23:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:23:53 +1100 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA08811 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:23:48 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (p60-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.124]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA29780 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:27:00 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <3611C376.7729@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:36:54 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: minor penalty card References: <3611A2C6.11@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > snip > > If [perish the thought!] the TD was not called then everyone got what > > they deserve - an unnecessary argument. > > > Sorry all Meant Law50C. Actually the law only specifies what happens in > the suit of the minor penalty card. The rest is by inference that it is > not specified therefore is allowable. East didn't realize that the minor > penalty card could stay on the table until south wanted to play it i.e > south when unable to follow suit in spades could ruff rather than having > to play the minor penalty card. East had based her play on south being > unable to ruff. > > And (horror of horrors) the TD wasn't called until south ruffed instead > of playing the minor penalty card so yes David I felt they all got what > they deserved but still felt the law ( especially for learners) was > ambiguous. > > Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 20:29:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:29:13 +1100 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 UAA08829 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:29:07 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-10.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.106]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA23768; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:32:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3638362A.43B1DF2F@idt.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:32:26 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: clear rules References: <199810270653.WAA01698@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't really disagree with anything Marvin says here. I have heard that in the very early days of the game (I'm speaking of the 30's, which were before my time :), championship events were quite small, and side games were huge. Over the years, some sort of change occurred, so that by the 60's, championship events were quite large, and side games very small. Perhaps it was after this that the loss of attendance that Marvin refers to began to occur, but maybe it was just the general decline that was occurring. This is not clear to me. It is certainly true that the current stratification of events is very popular among the weaker players. I too miss the varied, and interesting, Bridge Week schedule of yesteryear. The four session Open Pairs was a terrific event, and for the lesser players (like myself, especially at the time) just getting to play in the finals on Sunday was a terrific accomplishment, and the real objective. We didn't really even THINK about winning overall. As I recall, not only the Master's Pairs, but the Mixed, Men's and Women's were ALL three session events. The BAM teams was two sessions (my first regional win!). Of course the KO was NOT bracketed, and the field was seeded, so that if you were on a weak team, you could be sure of playing one of the better teams around town. I always looked at this as an opportunity, a sentiment not shared by most of the B and C players I talk to these days. I find the ubiquity of the stratified games quite boring, and would love to see something done about it. Irv "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Irwin J. Kostal wrote: > > > > There is not much difference between the Stratified events and > the open > > pairs we used to have most of the time. In truth, I rather think > the > > stratified pairs are simply open pairs with better seeding. > > > As I remember, there was a big difference, at least for > championships. The weaker players tended not to participate in open > championship events at sectionals and regionals, because they did > not enjoy being pounded and it was too hard to win masterpoints. > They played in the single-session open side games (popularly known > as "rat races") or in events restricted to their peers. > > My first Los Angeles Bridge Week Regional Open Pairs had just one > section in the two-session final, which followed two qualifying > sessions. In it were Meyer Schleifer, Lew Mathe, Eddie Taylor, Mary > Jane Kauder (now Farell), Arnold Kauder, Milton Vernoff, Stella > Rebner, Dr Edward Frischauer, Helen Cale, Jack Ehrlenbach, Ernest > Rovere, the Kempners, Marshall Miles, the Portugals, Doug Steen, > and Ralph Cash, every one of whom is included in the "Leading > Bridge Personalities" section of *The ACBL Official Encyclopedia of > Bridge*. Now that was a good game! > > As I remember the old Bridge Week schedule, it included, besides > the four-session Open, a three-session play-through Masters Pairs, > Mixed Pairs, Men's Pairs, Women's Pairs, Board-a-Match Teams, and > Knockout Teams. That was a fun schedule! > > The 1998 Bridge Week, now held in Pasadena, had none of those great > pair events, just one two-session strati-flighted pairs, five(!) > two-session stratified pairs, flighted Swiss teams, and a variety > of knockout teams (bracketed by masterpoint holding). The five > senior pair games were all two-session stratified games. Whoever is > responsible for this schedule has nothing to be proud of. > > The usual argument given for stratified pairs is that they increase > attendance. I see other reasons for their ubiquity, and I emphasize > that these are only my impressions of what the reasons could be, > for which I have no proof: > > -- Directors like to have one big game instead of multiple games. > Makes their job a lot easier. Tournament managers tend to defer to > the DIC when deciding on a schedule. If you were a DIC, what would > you recommend? > > -- Pros prefer stratified games, because it's easier to get > masterpoints for clients in a mixed section of A, B, and C players. > All they have to do is beat the B and C pairs in their section, and > they're probably in the money. Pros, many of whom are ACBL > Directors, have a lot of clout. > > -- B and C players are awarded more masterpoints, overall, in a > stratified event than would be awarded to them if they played in > separate games. I am not referring to the points won by B & Cs when > they get into the A rankings. Assume no B pair places in A, and no > C pair places in A or B, and I believe total masterpoints awarded > to them are more than they would get in a separate game or games. > It's like a bribe to keep them happy with stratified games. > > -- Entry fees are larger for major events than for concurrent > events of less importance. Getting everyone into one stratified > so-called "championship" brings in more money. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 21:52:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:52:58 +1100 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 VAA09047 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:52:54 +1100 Received: from comlab43 (comlab43.comlaw.utas.edu.au [131.217.70.186]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA18058 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:56:47 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:56:47 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981030000306.11afcdb0@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.sandybay.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: What is the ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:53 29/10/1998 -0500, David Kent wrote: >Hi all, > >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >================= > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Yes, NS have revealed their agreement. EW are not entitled to an accurate description of the hand; they are entitled to an accurate description of the agreements in the auction. Law 40A : A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > Would you give NS a PP? Law 75B B. Violations of Partnership Agreements A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress. In any case, even if you would like to assess a penalty, you'd also have to penalise every time any side doesn't bid according to their agreements. This would immediately disadvantage sides that **do** have agreements that they can substantiate (say with system notes), whereas your average bridge player could hide behind "But we just play standard" and bid as they pleased. > If so, would this accrue to E/W? The Laws don't provide for the technicalities of a procedural penalty (which is not warranted under any of Law 90 (see below)) but it is commonly understood that the penalty is assessed independently of the matchpointing / IMPing, and will thus affect the score of only the side that is being penalised. A classic case is a side arriving late to an IMP event. The regulations might stipulate a fine of 3 IMPs for every 5 minutes late or part thereof... this will be deducted from the offending side's score, but obviously will not be added to the non-offending side's score. Mark Abraham Law 90: A. Director's Authority The Director, 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, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. B. Offenses Subject to Penalty Offenses subject to penalty include but are not limited to: 1. Tardiness arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time. 2. Slow Play unduly slow play by a contestant. 3. Loud Discussion discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table. 4. Comparing Scores unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant. 5. Touching Another's Cards touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (Law 7). 6. Misplacing Cards in Board placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board. 7. Errors in Procedure errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant. 8. Failure to Comply failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with any instruction of the Director. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 21:59:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:59:22 +1100 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 VAA09086 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:59:13 +1100 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 MAA27430 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:03:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810291103.MAA27430@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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:04:07 +0000 Subject: Re: Card played by defender? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19981028103616.006be144@pop.mindspring.com> References: <001601be021b$6be38d00$422b63c3@david-burn> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn: > > I would venture to suggest that in every > > possible sphere of life, Law 45(c)(4)(a) is always unnecessary, > > whatever it may say. Mike Dennis: > I agree, in general. I think that L45C4a is actually aimed primarily at > declarer, since usually declarer is "naming or otherwise designating" > cards to be played from dummy. Right. Unfortunately, nowhere in TFLB is explicitly stated that players are not "supposed to give a running commentary on the cards they play" (as Norman Scorbie put it), and, even worse, L45C4a seems to allow this possibility. But I would like to interpret L45C4 as a logical 'follow-up' to L45C3 (which is about "declarer touching dummy's cards"), so, L45C4 should regulate "declarer naming dummy's cards". But, altough it would prevent problems like this (by Mike Dennis): > But a more interesting theoretical problem with L45C4a concerns what should > happen when a defender designates a card he proposes to play when he > actually doesn't have such a card! Suppose in third position, the defender > announces his intention of winning partner's J lead with the A. Before this > mythical A hits the table, declarer has naturally followed low (from Kx). > It seems completely inequitable to allow the J to win the trick, and yet > the Laws seem mute on how to handle the situation. it is not the letter of the law......... JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 fax (+)31 (0)20 525 7431 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 22:37:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:37:13 +1100 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 WAA09186 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:37:07 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-117.uunet.be [194.7.13.117]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05138 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:40:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36384E55.8DEC5F3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:15:33 +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: Re: 2penatlycards References: <363812E7.8C9@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN wrote: > > I am not agree with David Stevenson > In my opinion we should not considere than L51 is incomplete. > L50 send to L51 not the opposit. > L51 2.b does say he may prohibit the lead and that is all. > So I think than the probihition should not remain in case of 2 penalty > cards. > > Claude Dadoun What a delight to find some new well-qualified members on the list. While I find that the Law should be as David explained it, there is quite something to say for Claude's point of view. I have even taken the french version of the Laws (I have one since this week) to see if this is the result of a faulty translation. Let's see. -L50 defines a penalty card, and applies both to one or more of them. -L50A says it must stay on the table, and applies also to more than one. -L50B tells us when it is a minor, but of course 2 are always majors. -L50C has no effect. -L50D1 tells that a major penalty card must be played. It does also deal with the problem of 2, so L51 is not really necessary to deal with this. -L50D2 tells about partner's lead restrictions. It says declarer can require or prohibit (with addition 'as long as he retains the lead'), and then states to check L51 in case of more than one penalty card. L50D2 also states the penalty card may be taken up again. -L51A repeats what is already said in L50D1, but adds 'at that turn', which is logical as at the next turn the other card will probably have to be played. Not everything of L50D1 is repeated though, and we may ask ourselves the question if this means anything. -L51B then deals with the complications of two or more penalty cards and restrictions on partner's lead. Here too, not everything of L50 is repeated. >From the word order in both Laws (both in english and in french) I deduce that it must have been the intention of the WBFLC to have L51 serve as a expansion of L50, but that otherwise, everything in L50 remains in force. It is not clear in the literal text that this is so though, and it is probably one for Grattan's memory board. But I presume that one word from Ton may be enough to tell us which is the correct interpretation. - -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 23:30:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:30:46 +1100 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 XAA09289 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:30:39 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYrHV-0001CT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:34:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:10:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >================= > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Yes. No MI. > Would you give NS a PP? No. No infraction. > If so, would this >accrue to E/W? No. PPs never accrue to their oppos so even if one was given you would not get the benefit. > Can you back this up with law numbers? I am tempted to say "Yes"! OK. Law 99. Bridge is a game of mistakes and it is tough luck if your oppos made a mistake and you do not benefit. Look, David, your opponents did nothing wrong in a legal sense. The committed no infraction. They described the bid accurately per their system. Why should the score be adjusted or a fine imposed? No reason. In the bidding players make misjudgements, howling errors, forget the system, bid too much, use Blackwood when they should not, don't use it when they should, and so on. Life is often unfair: you don't always gain: horror of horrors, sometimes you lose! Have you never got the wrong response to Blackwood and got a good response as a result? It happens: Bridge is a lucky game despite some people's attempts to remove the luck, and if it were not so lucky it would not be so popular. If you had a choice would you prefer your oppos to play perfectly, or to make one bidding mistake *every* board? The latter, of course. But that does not mean you would *gain* on every board, just on balance. So in this case you got a correct ruling and a bad board. Shame! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 29 23:30:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:30:54 +1100 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 XAA09295 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:30:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYrHV-0001CU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:34:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:22:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: three passes????? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981028233010.006be604@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 01:09 PM 10/28/98 +0000, David S wrote: >>Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>>On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: >>> >>>> At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : >>>> 1D -1S - P - P >>>> 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the >>>> other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids >>>> 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids >>>> cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid >>>> and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by >>>> the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid >>>> and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades >>>> but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you >>>> rule???? >>> >>>There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not >>>ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. >> >> There is doubt, and there is one *very* strong piece of evidence. >>Opener's LHO, who alleges that he bid 3S, picked his cards up after two >>passes. I rule the contract as 3C. I tell him that I am doing so >>because he picked his cards up after two more passes and that means I >>*know* he passed. >> >> He'll learn better from a ruling against him that he thoroughly >>deserves. >> >This seems wrong to me. Couldn't we ask the players at the table whether 3S >was bid or not? Clearly two of them disagree, and if the matter breaks down >as 2-2, then I agree with David's ruling. But I think it rather more likely >that 3 of the players will agree that either 3S was bid or the putative >bidder passed. In the latter case, obviously the contract is 3C. But if 3S >_was_ bid, then Henk's solution is the only equitable, legal approach. > >David's haste to rule without seeking the relevant facts is so >uncharacteristic that I think his response may have been a bit >tongue-in-cheek. If not, then to make a ruling based on a demonstrably >incorrect fact set is an abuse of directorial discretion, carried out, in >this instance, for the apparent purpose of teaching this player a lesson. "The opponents say no" I took to mean that they both said no, and I understood the write-up to mean 2-2. However, on balance, even if it is 3-1, I am not convinced that you are correct. It is a very superficial idea to assume that you should rule in favour of a 3-1 vote, because it is never as clear-cut as that. People go into long wanderings about "Well, I did not really see, I was thinking about the colour of that lady's hair, and whether my hairdresser, oh, sorry, yes, he took out... , oh, you say you did not, dear, well if you say so, pardon, what, my opinion, well, I would not like to disagree with Tommy here, he is always so nice and he bid 1S the previous round, what, oh you didn't bid 1S, what did you do, you passed, but how can you have, no I am sure it was 3S." Now tell me, which way do you count that vote? When answering questions here I have said time and again that you investigate first. However, when presented with a question, I assume all relevant facts have been elicited, and the investigation was done, and now you have to decide. The fact that a player removed his bidding cards is *strong* evidence that *he* believes the bidding has finished, and while a 3-1 vote otherwise would be fairly strong evidence the other way, it is not conclusive, since 3-1 can mean anything. Certainly I would judge at the table. On the facts presented to us in the original write-up, my judgement is that the taking away of the bidding cards was stronger evidence than anything else so I rule as 3C. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 01:48:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:48:10 +1100 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 BAA12064 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:48:04 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcisk.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.148]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA22593 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:51:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981029094841.006c3038@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:48:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com> References: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:53 AM 10/29/98 -0500, David Kent wrote: >Hi all, > >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >================= > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Would you give NS a PP? If so, would this >accrue to E/W? Can you back this up with law numbers? > One potential issue is whether the NS methods are legal for this event (in the ACBL). But you didn't describe the conditions of contest which might limit such methods, so I will assume this is not a problem. Other than that, What's the Problem? If the TD did in fact confirm to his satisfaction (and even yours, apparently) that the NS agreement was correctly described by North, then there has been no violation. South is not obliged to remember his agreements nor to adhere to them if he does remember them. It looks like he forgot, but whether he did so or merely decided to take a view with this particular hand, he's entitled. Neither a score adjustment nor a PP are in order, nor can I cite a Law number as backup since no Law has been transgressed. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 02:11:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:11:02 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12370 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:10:55 +1100 Received: id KAA16954; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:08:27 -0500 Received: by gateway id ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:09:59 -0500 Message-ID: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> From: Dave Kent To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: What is the ruling Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:09:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:53 29/10/1998 -0500, David Kent wrote: >Hi all, > >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >================= > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Thanks for your explanations Mark and David. I guess my objection was that opener said nothing e.g. "My hand may not be as described by my partner." I understand that if declarer has psyched it is a different story completely - it would be ludicrous for him to identify to the defenders that he has done so. Clearly declarer does not know his agreements - does it not make sense for him to cover his ass before the opening lead is made by saying that the hand he has may not conform to the description provided by his partner. Is it possible for him to be 100% sure that it is he that has forgotten the system - perhaps they discussed this situation last night after the 2nd bottle of single malt and it really is partner who has forgotten the 'new' system. With no system notes to back you up, is it not 'active ethics' to ensure that the opponents are not misled? Not only is it 'actively ethical' to clarify the situation, maybe your notes actually agree with your holding. I believe you had better be 100% positive that your agreements are as parnter suggests, and not your actual holding before you fail to warn the opponents. I do this as a matter of course, from club games to the world championships - especially with screens (e.g. "What did you tell your screenmate that my 3NT bid meant partner?") Am I an idiot for doing so? I know in the hand in question it is immaterial - 3NT is stiff (although the CT lead to which I follow with the 'stiff' Q may cause opener some consternation - he'd better duck) and of course my teammates were in 4S down 1. But I like to believe that it is not just sour grapes, it is the principle of the situation is what bothers me. Especially when playing somewhat esoteric systems, I believe the onus should be on you to ensure that the opponents are not misled. Should the opponents who may have been damaged have no rights whatsoever? Maybe not in this situation, but this is the only situation that can be corrected without giving UI to partner. Oh well, thanks for letting me vent. David Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 02:29:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:29:37 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f55.hotmail.com [207.82.251.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA12409 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:29:31 +1100 Received: (qmail 13024 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Oct 1998 15:33:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19981029153322.13023.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.113.139.190 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:33:22 PST X-Originating-IP: [193.113.139.190] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Card played by defender? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:33:22 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Burn: > >> > I would venture to suggest that in every >> > possible sphere of life, Law 45(c)(4)(a) is always unnecessary, >> > whatever it may say. Philosophically sound. Are you the one that writes the books with Terence Reese about the Abbott? Someone lent me one some years ago, and I must say I enjoyed it tremendously. Getting back to this card played by saying 'I ruff' business, though, what if everyone had had three cards left rather than two? If the defender had two trumps and one plain card, and had said 'I ruff' and then played the plain card? There would, I'd have thought, been no way that she could have been said to indicate a specific trump, and consequently the plain card would clearly have been played. Can we not just interpolate from this? I still think people should not be encouraged to give a running commentary during the play of the hand, unless one of the other players is blind, of course. Even then, it should be specific indication of which card. I think 'I ruff' in this context, was just gloating in advance. I think, BTW, that I'm in some danger of getting a bit stuck: It took me two days to work out that LOOT meant 'Lead Out Of Turn.' Is there somewhere I can go to see a list of CUAs(commonly used acronyms)? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 02:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:59:06 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12488 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:58:58 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:01:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-189.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.189] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:01:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:02:12 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2penatlycards References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id RAA05089 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > >I apologize for my mistakes, but I don't speak english and I try to > >write with one hand, the dictionnary french-english in the other ! >=20 > Don't worry, we have lots of people posting here whose English is not > very good . >=20 > >About penalty cards, I think you agree with me : if you have 2 or > >more penalty cards law 50 does not applied. You have to apply > >law 51 like I read it in law 50 D 2 (a) ok? >=20 > No, L51 is additional to L50. There is no suggestion that L50 does > not apply. >=20 > >Well, law 51 says: "when a defender has two or more penalty cards in o= ne > >suit (b) if the declarer prohibits the lead of that suit > >the defender picks up every card in that suit and make any legal > >play to the trick" .Final point > >Look that law 51 does not say "prohibition applies for as long as > >he retains ( the defender) the lead" like in law 50 when you have only > >one penalty card. >=20 > It could have been worded so as to make this point clearer, but in > fact it is unambiguous: it does not say he may prohibit the lead, it > says *If* he prohibits the lead ... , so you have to go back to L50 to > find out about prohibiting the lead. So the prohibition does last for > as long as the player retains the lead. >=20 > >Is it worst to have only one penalty card than two?? >=20 > No. >=20 > >Oh, Shakespeare, I beg your pardon.. >=20 > No matte > J'ai plaisir de vous voir. [Mon francais est tres mal.] >=20 > Avez-vous de chats [ou chiens]? >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 > Emails to bluejak on OKB > Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co. hello David, Thank you for your answer but for me the topic of conversation about=20 laws 50 and 51 is not closed. At first," I am not a lawyer but a director " like says an italian and very good colleague whose name is Ricardi Antonio, so I have only to=20 apply Laws, not to interpret or to correct it and I read: =20 1=B0- in Law 50 d 2 a, :" for two or more cards, see law 51" 2=B0- Law 50 deals Penalty card in singular form only and many times law says THE penalty card. 3=B0- If you have two penalty cards in more than one suit,L.51 2b says: " declarer may prohibit" Look this example:East defender has QD and QS penalized and West on lead. Declarer prohibits lead in D. East picks up QD but QS stands penalized. OK Now, W leads Ace clubs and wins the trick. Now declarer may prohibit new lead in spades, you agree? Do you think prohibition to lead Diamonds continues? If you answer no , you makes L.51 B1b different from 51 B2b.Why? If for second lead, West leads Ace of hearts...in this case, of course, declarer may prohibit him from leading in H for as long=20 as he retains the lead .Prohibition continues for H and not for Spades?? If you answer yes, why Law51 does not mention it? =20 You say " Law 51 is additional Law to Law 50" ok I understand what you mind, but WHY, WHY isn't clearer in the wording? May be, could you understand my problems better, if you know that I am not only a Director, but the ruling's teacher for French Federation. =20 PS: Ihave no cats, I don't like them. I have no dogs,I like them I have wife I love her... but dogs Iknow why, I like them! Amicalement, =20 ^ ( How do you say that in English ?) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 03:10:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 03:10:04 +1100 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 DAA12507 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 03:09:58 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-11.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.177]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA07467 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:13:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36389433.78561740@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:13:40 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: three passes????? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is agreed by three players that 3 spades was bid, only the opener who was now in the pass out seat did not see the 3 spade bid. The cards were being picked up before the opener's last bid and the opener assumed because of the cards being picked up that the auction had ended. When told of the 3 spade bid the director was called as the opener did not bid or pass. The opener stated that a bid would have been made over the 3 spade bid. By ruling 3 clubs as the contract, are we not depriving opener a bid in the last round of bidding which was 3 spades, P, P, ......which was stated that it would have been 4 diamonds. ..? By the way, the director's ruling was that the opener, by picking up the bid cards had passed!!! (it was clear at the table that the director really didn't know what the ruling should be.) David Stevenson wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >At 01:09 PM 10/28/98 +0000, David S wrote: > >>Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>>On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Nancy's Desk wrote: > >>> > >>>> At the local NLM game. the bidding has proceeded : > >>>> 1D -1S - P - P > >>>> 2C - 2S -P - P and this player starts to pick up bid cards and the > >>>> other two follow. The opener says "wait, I have a bid and bids > >>>> 3C. the bidding carries on ? P P, and again LHO picks up the bids > >>>> cards, all others do the same, and opener start to write down the bid > >>>> and says, 3 clubs. The opponents say "no , the bid is three spades by > >>>> the original spade bidder. The opener in the passout seat has not bid > >>>> and would have bid 4 diamonds, holding 6 diamonds, 5 clubs and no spades > >>>> but had not seen the 3 spade bid. The director was called, how do you > >>>> rule???? > >>> > >>>There have been only 2 passes after the last bid, so the bidding has not > >>>ended yet and opener is allowed to bid something. > >> > >> There is doubt, and there is one *very* strong piece of evidence. > >>Opener's LHO, who alleges that he bid 3S, picked his cards up after two > >>passes. I rule the contract as 3C. I tell him that I am doing so > >>because he picked his cards up after two more passes and that means I > >>*know* he passed. > >> > >> He'll learn better from a ruling against him that he thoroughly > >>deserves. > >> > >This seems wrong to me. Couldn't we ask the players at the table whether 3S > >was bid or not? Clearly two of them disagree, and if the matter breaks down > >as 2-2, then I agree with David's ruling. But I think it rather more likely > >that 3 of the players will agree that either 3S was bid or the putative > >bidder passed. In the latter case, obviously the contract is 3C. But if 3S > >_was_ bid, then Henk's solution is the only equitable, legal approach. > > > >David's haste to rule without seeking the relevant facts is so > >uncharacteristic that I think his response may have been a bit > >tongue-in-cheek. If not, then to make a ruling based on a demonstrably > >incorrect fact set is an abuse of directorial discretion, carried out, in > >this instance, for the apparent purpose of teaching this player a lesson. > > "The opponents say no" I took to mean that they both said no, and I > understood the write-up to mean 2-2. However, on balance, even if it is > 3-1, I am not convinced that you are correct. It is a very superficial > idea to assume that you should rule in favour of a 3-1 vote, because it > is never as clear-cut as that. People go into long wanderings about > "Well, I did not really see, I was thinking about the colour of that > lady's hair, and whether my hairdresser, oh, sorry, yes, he took out... > , oh, you say you did not, dear, well if you say so, pardon, what, my > opinion, well, I would not like to disagree with Tommy here, he is > always so nice and he bid 1S the previous round, what, oh you didn't bid > 1S, what did you do, you passed, but how can you have, no I am sure it > was 3S." Now tell me, which way do you count that vote? > > When answering questions here I have said time and again that you > investigate first. However, when presented with a question, I assume > all relevant facts have been elicited, and the investigation was done, > and now you have to decide. The fact that a player removed his bidding > cards is *strong* evidence that *he* believes the bidding has finished, > and while a 3-1 vote otherwise would be fairly strong evidence the other > way, it is not conclusive, since 3-1 can mean anything. Certainly I > would judge at the table. > > On the facts presented to us in the original write-up, my judgement is > that the taking away of the bidding cards was stronger evidence than > anything else so I rule as 3C. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 > Emails to bluejak on OKB > Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 03:59:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 03:59:52 +1100 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 DAA12626 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 03:59:42 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 3VZVa03785 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:01:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:01:16 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What is the ruling Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Kent wrote: > > >Playing under ACBL rules: They're the same everywhere. And I fear that the interpretation seems to be somewhat the same. > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > > H - Kx Vul: N/S > > D - Kxx > > C - J87 > >S - QT84 S - J > >H - QJxx H - 97x > >D - Txx D - Qxxx > >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > > S - A97 > > H - AT8x > > D - AJx > > C - Kxx > > > > S W N E > >================= > > 1D* P 1H* P > > 1N* P 2D* P > > 3N* P P P > > > >1D - unbalanced with long D > > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor > >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) > >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D > >2D - GF Stayman > >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > > > >OL: S4 > > > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be > >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the > >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified > >distribution). > > > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > > > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually > >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no > >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the > >system). I find that TDs are much too willing to accept the "I forgot" excuse. Our Committees use a much more literal interpretation of the footnote in Law 75: "...but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." The explanation of their methods may have "made sense". But there are no system notes to clarify: A) That this was the actual agreement, or B)That South actually knew that this agreement existed in this auction. And that is where I find that a problem usually exists. If S was not aware that this agreement existed or thought that it worked in some other fashion, then there has been misinformation because one can only surmise that an agreement only exists when both parties are aware of what it is and how it works. Every player now knows that when there has been a disagreement, it is always right to say "I forgot". And in their mind, once they have heard the explanation, they recognize that they may indeed have forgotten. But when they started the auction, they thought that things worked differently. That is NOT a "forget", IMO. And I would have many questions before I would accept that it really was a "forget". When it happens to me, I am usually well aware that I was confused about the application of a particular sequence. Even though we might have had a discussion about it at some point, it is still a mistaken explanation if I was not really aware that the agreement functioned in a particular manner. That would mean we didn't have an "agreement". I think we've been in this area in the past. For David S - I open 2D and partner alerts Flannery. Later it is discovered that I have a Weak 2. You arrive at the table (I should be so lucky:) and find that our card is clearly marked Flannery. I tell you that my mind slipped and I just forgot. Is that it? A simple case of Mistaken Bid? Do you delve deeper to find out that: (A) We hadn't played in a while (B) I don't normally play Flannery (C) My partner filled out both convention cards and we went over them quickly. Given the above "facts", I will rule Mistaken Explanation because of what I believe to be a true lack of an "agreement" since I didn't really know what our agreement was. And I believe that this is what is meant by that footnote. We must take a hard look at the "evidence". I am well aware that TDs do not often have the time available to accomplish this. But I wish they would rule Mistaken Explanation and let the "Offending Side" have the burden of proof in front of a Committee. > >Would you let the result stand? > > Yes. No MI. I'm obviously still unsure from what I have been presented with. > > Would you give NS a PP? > > No. No infraction. I do agree that I would be unlikely to issue a PP. But if my investigation led me to believe that S was not even close to aware of this agreement as put forth by N and failed to disclose the fact that he thought it all worked differently, I might want to issue a PP if I thought he should have known better. > > If so, would this > >accrue to E/W? > > No. PPs never accrue to their oppos so even if one was given you > would not get the benefit. We still agree on some things, David:) > > Can you back this up with law numbers? > > I am tempted to say "Yes"! > > OK. Law 99. Bridge is a game of mistakes and it is tough luck if > your oppos made a mistake and you do not benefit. I hate when that happens! I fully acknowledge that it does - I'm just not willing to accept on the face of it that this was one of those. [s] > In the bidding players make misjudgements, howling errors, forget the > system, bid too much, use Blackwood when they should not, don't use it > when they should, and so on. Life is often unfair: you don't always > gain: horror of horrors, sometimes you lose! Have you never got the > wrong response to Blackwood and got a good response as a result? It > happens: Bridge is a lucky game despite some people's attempts to remove > the luck, and if it were not so lucky it would not be so popular. All very valid, David. And I'm going to memorize this and use it at the appropriate time. I'm just not convinced yet that it applies here. > If you had a choice would you prefer your oppos to play perfectly, or > to make one bidding mistake *every* board? The latter, of course. But > that does not mean you would *gain* on every board, just on balance. > > So in this case you got a correct ruling and a bad board. Shame! Maybe so, maybe not... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 05:04:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:04:18 +1100 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 FAA12826 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:04:11 +1100 Received: from [199.172.251.45] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 216 ID# 0-54131U11000L11000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:07:36 -0400 Date: 29 Oct 98 15:08:04 +0100 From: Jack Rhind Subject: RE: What is the ruling 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="====54565749484852525557===1" Message-ID: <19981029180736.AAA22350@stormy.ibl.bm@[199.172.251.45]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --====54565749484852525557===1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Reply to: RE: What is the ruling I would allow the result to stand, as the director of record did. There = nots not appear to be any mistake in the explanation of the bidding. South = simply made the wrong bid, and for that there is no penalty. *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** David Kent wrote: >Hi all, > >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D = > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) = > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S =3D 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may = be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C =3D 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N = actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were = no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained = the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Would you give NS a PP? If so, would = this >accrue to E/W? Can you back this up with law numbers? > >Thanks for the input. = > > > >Dave Kent >david@magi.com > > >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 ; > Thu, 29 Oct 1998 06:18:06 -0400 > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) = id = >TAA08706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:48:37 +1100 > 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 TAA08701 for = >; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:48:31 +1100 > Received: from ms01-96.ott.istar.ca (default) [137.186.208.96] = > by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) > id 0zYnob-0005zt-00; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:52:21 -0500 > Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com> > X-Sender: david@magi.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:53:10 -0500 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Kent > Subject: What is the ruling > In-Reply-To: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > --====54565749484852525557===1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
         Reply to:   RE: What is the ruling
I would allow the result to stand, = as the director of record did. There nots = not appear to be any mistake in the explanation = of the bidding. South simply made the wrong = bid, and for that there is no penalty.

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

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

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

David Kent wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Playing = under ACBL rules:
>
> = S - K6532 Dealer: S
> = H - Kx Vul: N/S
> = D - Kxx
> C - J87
>S = - QT84 S - J
>H - QJxx = H - 97x
>D - Txx = D - Qxxx
>C - Tx = C - AQ9xx
> S - A97
> = H - AT8x
> D - AJx
> = C - Kxx
>
> S W N = E
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 1D* = P 1H* P
> 1N* P 2D* P
> 3N* = P P P
>
>1D - unbalanced = with long D
> or 15-17 balanced = (C mayber longer than D)
> or = 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor
>1H = - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S =3D 4+H)
>1N - bal 15-17, = C may be longer than D
>2D - GF Stayman
>3N = - North identified this as 2-3-4-4
>
>OL: = S4
>
>W led the S4 (playing usually = 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may = be
>'active'). The first 3 tricks = were spades and I (as East) called the
>director = at this point (i.e. declarer did not have = the specified
>distribution).
>
>Result: = NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C =3D 9 tricks)
>
>The = director ruled that the result stands (after = clarifying that N actually
>did descibe = the S hand as per their agreements - even = though there were no
>system notes = to back this up - however it made sense when = he explained the
>system).
>
>Would = you let the result stand? Would you give = NS a PP? If so, would this
>accrue = to E/W? Can you back this up with law numbers?
>
>Thanks = for the input.
>
>
>
>Dave = Kent
>david@magi.= com
>
>
>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">>;
> = Thu, 29 Oct 1998 06:18:06 -0400
> Received: = (from daemon@= localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au = (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
>TAA08706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; = Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:48:37 +1100
> 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 TAA08701 for
><bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.= au>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 = 19:48:31 +1100
> Received: from ms01-96.ott.istar.ca = (default) [137.186.208.96]
> by mail.magi.com = with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5)
> id 0zYnob-0005zt-00; = Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:52:21 -0500
> Message-Id: = <3.0.6.32.= 19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com>
> X-Sender: = david@magi.com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM = Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
> = Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:53:10 -0500
> = To: bridge-laws@= octavia.anu.edu.au
> From: David Kent = <david@magi.= com>
> Subject: What = is the ruling
> In-Reply-To: <199810290542.VAA10866@= prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>
> Mime-Version: = 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
> = Sender: owner-= bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
> Precedence: bulk
> = --====54565749484852525557===1-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 05:32:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:32:05 +1100 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 FAA12864 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:31:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYwub-0007MV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:35:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:52:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2penatlycards References: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: >Thank you for your answer but for me the topic of conversation about=20 >laws 50 and 51 is not closed. No problem: I am not always correct, and am always willing to hear further argument. >At first," I am not a lawyer but a director " like says an italian and >very good colleague whose name is Ricardi Antonio, so I have only to=20 >apply Laws, not to interpret or to correct it and I read: >1=B0- in Law 50 d 2 a, :" for two or more cards, see law 51" But it does not say it at the start of the Law. You read certain items, and then it refers you to L51. In my view that means that those items apply. >2=B0- Law 50 deals Penalty card in singular form only and many times > law says THE penalty card. >3=B0- If you have two penalty cards in more than one suit,L.51 2b says: > " declarer may prohibit" > Look this example:East defender has QD and QS penalized and West > on lead. Declarer prohibits lead in D. > East picks up QD but QS stands penalized. OK > Now, W leads Ace clubs and wins the trick. > Now declarer may prohibit new lead in spades, you agree? > Do you think prohibition to lead Diamonds continues? Yes, I believe so. [s] > You say " Law 51 is additional Law to Law 50" ok I understand > what you mind, but WHY, WHY isn't clearer in the wording? I do not know why it is not clearer. it is often difficult when drafting a Law to see problems in reading it. Until you mentioned this here on BLML I did not realise there was a difficulty, but I agree now it has been pointed out that I ca see the ambiguity. > May be, could you understand my problems better, if you know that > I am not only a Director, but the ruling's teacher for French > Federation. =20 I see the problem very well, and it is an excellent one. > Amicalement, > ^ > ( How do you say that in English ?) Friendly? Dany often finishes his posts with the word "Friendly". Claude DADOUN wrote: >I am not agree with David Stevenson >In my opinion we should not considere than L51 is incomplete. >L50 send to L51 not the opposit. >L51 2.b does say he may prohibit the lead and that is all. >So I think than the probihition should not remain in case of 2 penalty >cards. Let us look at the problem again. If there is a major penalty card, then you look at L50D for its disposition. If there are two penalty cards we would still normally look at L50 because that is where it is defined, and decisions made as to whether they are major or minor. If the offender is to play then L50D1 applies. It mentions two penalty cards, which shows that the lawmakers consider that it applies to two penalty cards. Furthermore there is no problem between L50D1 and L51A since they say the same thing - good! However, there are other parts of L50D1 that apply to multiple penalty cards, and the evidence is that it applies. Suppose offender's partner is to lead. L50D2 tells him what he can and cannot do, and after listing various matters, it refers the reader to L51. Now, if L50D2 does not apply, then are we to infer that with multiple penalty cards declarer may not choose to leave them on the table? I infer it as an option because it appears in L50D2, specifically in L50D2B, but it is nowhere mentioned in L51. While I have sympathy for the views of Claude and Phillipe, I believe that L50D2 applies to multiple cards, referring to L51 because of additional rules that only apply to multiple penalty cards. If this were not the case we would not apply L50 at all to multiple penalty cards, and it is clear from much of the wording in L50 that it is to be applied to multiple penalty cards [L50B and L50D1 actually have sentences referring to two or more penalty cards]. --=20 David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 05:32:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:32:17 +1100 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 FAA12870 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:32:06 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYwuh-0007Mi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:35:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:03:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the ruling References: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Kent wrote: >Thanks for your explanations Mark and David. > >I guess my objection was that opener said nothing e.g. "My hand may not be >as described by my partner." I understand that if declarer has psyched it >is a different story completely - it would be ludicrous for him to identify >to the defenders that he has done so. > >Clearly declarer does not know his agreements - does it not make sense for >him to cover his ass before the opening lead is made by saying that the hand >he has may not conform to the description provided by his partner. > >Is it possible for him to be 100% sure that it is he that has forgotten the >system - perhaps they discussed this situation last night after the 2nd >bottle of single malt and it really is partner who has forgotten the 'new' >system. > >With no system notes to back you up, is it not 'active ethics' to ensure >that the opponents are not misled? Not only is it 'actively ethical' to >clarify the situation, maybe your notes actually agree with your holding. I >believe you had better be 100% positive that your agreements are as parnter >suggests, and not your actual holding before you fail to warn the opponents. >I do this as a matter of course, from club games to the world championships >- especially with screens (e.g. "What did you tell your screenmate that my >3NT bid meant partner?") Am I an idiot for doing so? Of course not. But to do so is *voluntary*. And that means that you have no right to expect others to do it. You refer to Active Ethics: not only are they voluntary, but there is a lot of disagreement as to what is covered by Active Ethics. I think the advantage accruing to your oppos from mistaken bids is quite enough: I do not think there is *or should be* any requirement to go further and tell them so. >Oh well, thanks for letting me vent. NP. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 05:32:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:32:23 +1100 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 FAA12876 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:32:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zYwub-0007MU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:35:10 +0000 Message-ID: <9EN+gEATDKO2EwXC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:07:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Card played by defender? References: <19981029153322.13023.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19981029153322.13023.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >I think, BTW, that I'm in some danger of getting a bit stuck: It took me >two days to work out that LOOT meant 'Lead Out Of Turn.' Is there >somewhere I can go to see a list of CUAs(commonly used acronyms)? Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C WBF Laws Committee C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from OKBridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 07:25:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:25:15 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12945 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:25:09 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id OAA01301; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:45:43 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA02735; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:45:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199810291945.OAA02735@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: What is the ruling To: Dave.Kent@PWGSC.GC.CA (Dave Kent) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:45:33 -0500 (EST) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) In-Reply-To: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> from "Dave Kent" at Oct 29, 98 10:09:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Kent wrote (excerpted - full text appears at end): >>I guess my objection was that opener said nothing e.g. "My hand may not be >>as described by my partner." I understand that if declarer has psyched it >>is a different story completely - it would be ludicrous for him to identify >>to the defenders that he has done so. Opener is under *no* obligation to make such a statement. >>Clearly declarer does not know his agreements - does it not make sense for >>him to cover his ass before the opening lead is made by saying that the hand >>he has may not conform to the description provided by his partner. I would like to mention one other possibility - opener knew that 2D was checkback, but chose to bid 3NT anyway. We dont know from the information you provided. >>Is it possible for him to be 100% sure that it is he that has forgotten the >>system - perhaps they discussed this situation last night after the 2nd >>bottle of single malt and it really is partner who has forgotten the 'new' >>system. This is a valid point. I think that in some cases this point will need to be considered, especially in light of the examples given in L75, where the director is instruction to presume mistaken explanation rather than misbid in doubtful cases. Presumably in this case the director felt that this was not such a doubtful case. The opponents were able to provide a coherent explanation of their system which convinced you, and there was no reason to believe anything to the contrary. I dont know, I wasnt at the table, but this is the impression I get from your story. >>With no system notes to back you up, is it not 'active ethics' to ensure >>that the opponents are not misled? Not only is it 'actively ethical' to >>clarify the situation, maybe your notes actually agree with your holding. I >>believe you had better be 100% positive that your agreements are as parnter >>suggests, and not your actual holding before you fail to warn the opponents. >>I do this as a matter of course, from club games to the world championships >>- especially with screens (e.g. "What did you tell your screenmate that my >>3NT bid meant partner?") Am I an idiot for doing so? This paragraph is the reason I chose to respond to this post. Active ethics *ARE NOT* part of the law!!! Note to non-ACBL'ers: "active ethics" is a code of behavior being promolgated in many ACBL venues. It addresses many of the more blatant abuses of the proprieties (which I think is a good thing, and *is* in accordance with the law), but it has also been interpreted to mean that players ought to go beyond what the law requires in some situations: for example, declarer voluntary informing opponents that an explanation, while correct, does not conform to his holding. This blurring the line between favors and legal obligations concerns me. I have read committee rulings based on these types of "active ethics", and I feel that such rulings are wrong. People *should* be nice. People *are required* to obey the law. A directory/committee is charged with interpreting, applying and enforcing the law. They should not be able to issue penalties to someone who simply chose to bypass a chance to be nice, when they were not required to do anything more. In the particular situation, declarer had several options. (A) If he believed that the explanation given by his partner was *wrong*, he had a legal obligation to correct it. (B) If he believed that the explanation was correct then he had no legal obligation to correct. He may choose to do so to be nice, or in the spirit of "active ethics", if he likes. (C) If he thinks (but is not certain) that the explanation is correct, but is concerned that afterwards there would be some question as to what the correct explanation was (e.g. he feels that there is some possibility that the director will rule "misexplanation"), he may choose to protect himself from a L40C adjustment by informing his opponents, but he is under no legal obligation to do so. In my opinion, the attempts of the active ethics movement to enforce the proprieties of the game, by calling attention to the most common abuses, are a good thing. However, the attempts to force people to act beyond the law I think are misguided. --David Metcalf Dave Kent wrote: >> >>At 03:53 29/10/1998 -0500, David Kent wrote: >>>Hi all, >>> >>>Playing under ACBL rules: >>> >>> S - K6532 Dealer: S >>> H - Kx Vul: N/S >>> D - Kxx >>> C - J87 >>>S - QT84 S - J >>>H - QJxx H - 97x >>>D - Txx D - Qxxx >>>C - Tx C - AQ9xx >>> S - A97 >>> H - AT8x >>> D - AJx >>> C - Kxx >>> >>> S W N E >>>================= >>> 1D* P 1H* P >>> 1N* P 2D* P >>> 3N* P P P >>> >>>1D - unbalanced with long D >>> or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) >>> or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >>>1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >>>1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >>>2D - GF Stayman >>>3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 >>> >>>OL: S4 >>> >>>W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >>>'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >>>director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >>>distribution). >>> >>>Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) >>> >>>The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >>>did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >>>system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >>>system). >>> >>>Would you let the result stand? >> >>Thanks for your explanations Mark and David. >> >>I guess my objection was that opener said nothing e.g. "My hand may not be >>as described by my partner." I understand that if declarer has psyched it >>is a different story completely - it would be ludicrous for him to identify >>to the defenders that he has done so. >> >>Clearly declarer does not know his agreements - does it not make sense for >>him to cover his ass before the opening lead is made by saying that the hand >>he has may not conform to the description provided by his partner. >> >>Is it possible for him to be 100% sure that it is he that has forgotten the >>system - perhaps they discussed this situation last night after the 2nd >>bottle of single malt and it really is partner who has forgotten the 'new' >>system. >> >>With no system notes to back you up, is it not 'active ethics' to ensure >>that the opponents are not misled? Not only is it 'actively ethical' to >>clarify the situation, maybe your notes actually agree with your holding. I >>believe you had better be 100% positive that your agreements are as parnter >>suggests, and not your actual holding before you fail to warn the opponents. >>I do this as a matter of course, from club games to the world championships >>- especially with screens (e.g. "What did you tell your screenmate that my >>3NT bid meant partner?") Am I an idiot for doing so? >> >>I know in the hand in question it is immaterial - 3NT is stiff (although the >>CT lead to which I follow with the 'stiff' Q may cause opener some >>consternation - he'd better duck) and of course my teammates were in 4S down >>1. But I like to believe that it is not just sour grapes, it is the >>principle of the situation is what bothers me. Especially when playing >>somewhat esoteric systems, I believe the onus should be on you to ensure >>that the opponents are not misled. >> >>Should the opponents who may have been damaged have no rights whatsoever? >>Maybe not in this situation, but this is the only situation that can be >>corrected without giving UI to partner. >> >>Oh well, thanks for letting me vent. >> >> >>David Kent >>david@magi.com >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 08:38:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:38:16 +1100 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 IAA13214 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:38:10 +1100 From: bills@cshore.com Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 4648800 ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:39:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:40:23 -0500 To: LORMANT Philippe Subject: Re: 2penatlycards Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <199810292139.4648800@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Amicalement, > > ^ > ( How do you say that in English ?) On a suggere "friendly", mais c'est bien different. "Friendly" est un adjectif, pas un adverbe. On peut dire "Fondly", mais cela a le sens d'etre un peu plus amoureux que amical. J'ai ecoute de temps en temps "amicably", l'equivalent exact - c'est pas mal mais c'est rare. Pour moi, c'est une des choses plus facile en francais. Comme d'habitude, j'utilise en anglais "Cheers", "Regards", ou "Sincerely", mais je m'amuse beaucoup d'ecrire en francais parce que je peut utiliser "amicalement". :) Peut-etre, je dois utiliser "amicably". Bien Amicalement, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 09:42:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:42:35 +1100 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 JAA13369 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:42:28 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h92.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA02744; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:45:55 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3639990B.7077@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:46:35 -0800 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: clear rules References: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_9.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_9.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi David:) As usual - quotes from David's post are written in quotation marks: David wrote: "The TD would do well not to be in a position to see such a revoke unless his duties require him to be there. He should not, for example, casually watch bridge being played while he is a TD. So, let us suppose he sees a revoke when he is at the table for some other reason - perhaps to deal with a contested claim." Such a position about TD's function is one more relict of rubber bridge. Passive TD-ship brings problems even at club level. For example - because the number of incidents with non-agreed facts might be essentially less in case of active TD-ship, when "TDs casually watch bridge". And where in the Laws is written that TDs "should not casually watch"?:) David answered: "It is basic training for TDs rather than the Laws. I am happy that TDs should casually watch the play so long as there are sufficient TDs to watch at every table, naturally at least two per table with screens. In the normal arrangement it would be a most biased and unfair move to watch at a table casually chosen thus providing the benefit of active TDing at that table and not at the others." For my opinion expressions "It is basic training" and "TDs used to make their job passively" are congruent. That means that we (as it happened several times before) have the same opinion and the only difference is that DVS is still not conscious of it:) It may happens that after being conscious DVS will change his mind - but I hope that not this time:) Nevertheless I dare to point that DVS missed some important features when commented my post: there were suggested two manner of TD-ship: - at club level - usual number of TDs that do not sit at their table - they are wandering around the tournament, trying to watch and hear everything, - at championship level - one TD per one table (no need for two TDs at one table, there are no difficulties for arranging comfortable sit for one TD at the table where everything will be heard and seen). Where David took his conclusion from? Surely not from my post:) That's why it seems to me that his arguments are not against my position. And according with his nice (really!) argument from thread "3 passes": he know what he did - the same logic make me sure that DVS understood my position quite well and even agreed with it:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 11:51:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:51:18 +1100 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 LAA13656 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:51:10 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc44j.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.147]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22932 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:55:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981029195147.006cb3dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:51:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <199810291945.OAA02735@csb.bu.edu> References: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:45 PM 10/29/98 -0500, David Metcalf wrote: >Dave Kent wrote (excerpted - full text appears at end): >>>I guess my objection was that opener said nothing e.g. "My hand may not be >>>as described by my partner." I understand that if declarer has psyched it >>>is a different story completely - it would be ludicrous for him to identify >>>to the defenders that he has done so. > >Opener is under *no* obligation to make such a statement. > >>>Clearly declarer does not know his agreements - does it not make sense for >>>him to cover his ass before the opening lead is made by saying that the hand >>>he has may not conform to the description provided by his partner. > >I would like to mention one other possibility - opener knew that 2D >was checkback, but chose to bid 3NT anyway. We dont know from the >information you provided. > >>>Is it possible for him to be 100% sure that it is he that has forgotten the >>>system - perhaps they discussed this situation last night after the 2nd >>>bottle of single malt and it really is partner who has forgotten the 'new' >>>system. > >This is a valid point. I think that in some cases this point will need to >be considered, especially in light of the examples given in L75, where the >director is instruction to presume mistaken explanation rather than misbid >in doubtful cases. > >Presumably in this case the director felt that this was not such a doubtful >case. The opponents were able to provide a coherent explanation of their >system which convinced you, and there was no reason to believe anything >to the contrary. I dont know, I wasnt at the table, but this is the >impression I get from your story. > >>>With no system notes to back you up, is it not 'active ethics' to ensure >>>that the opponents are not misled? Not only is it 'actively ethical' to >>>clarify the situation, maybe your notes actually agree with your holding. I >>>believe you had better be 100% positive that your agreements are as parnter >>>suggests, and not your actual holding before you fail to warn the opponents. >>>I do this as a matter of course, from club games to the world championships >>>- especially with screens (e.g. "What did you tell your screenmate that my >>>3NT bid meant partner?") Am I an idiot for doing so? > >This paragraph is the reason I chose to respond to this post. Active >ethics *ARE NOT* part of the law!!! Note to non-ACBL'ers: "active ethics" >is a code of behavior being promolgated in many ACBL venues. It addresses >many of the more blatant abuses of the proprieties (which I think is a good >thing, and *is* in accordance with the law), but it has also been interpreted to >mean that players ought to go beyond what the law requires in some >situations: for example, declarer voluntary informing opponents that an >explanation, while correct, does not conform to his holding. > >This blurring the line between favors and legal obligations concerns me. >I have read committee rulings based on these types of "active ethics", >and I feel that such rulings are wrong. People *should* be nice. People >*are required* to obey the law. A directory/committee is charged with >interpreting, applying and enforcing the law. They should not be able >to issue penalties to someone who simply chose to bypass a chance to be nice, >when they were not required to do anything more. > >In the particular situation, declarer had several options. >(A) If he believed that the explanation given by his partner was *wrong*, >he had a legal obligation to correct it. >(B) If he believed that the explanation was correct then he had no legal >obligation to correct. He may choose to do so to be nice, or in the >spirit of "active ethics", if he likes. >(C) If he thinks (but is not certain) that the explanation is correct, >but is concerned that afterwards there would be some question as >to what the correct explanation was (e.g. he feels that there is some >possibility that the director will rule "misexplanation"), he may choose >to protect himself from a L40C adjustment by informing his opponents, but >he is under no legal obligation to do so. > >In my opinion, the attempts of the active ethics movement to enforce >the proprieties of the game, by calling attention to the most common >abuses, are a good thing. However, the attempts to force people to >act beyond the law I think are misguided. > >--David Metcalf Hear hear! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 12:20:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:20:07 +1100 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 MAA13687 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:20:01 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc44j.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.16.147]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11569 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:23:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981029202037.006d0120@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:20:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:01 PM 10/29/98 EST, Alan wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> David Kent wrote: >> >> >Playing under ACBL rules: > >They're the same everywhere. And I fear that the interpretation seems to be >somewhat the same. > >> > S - K6532 Dealer: S >> > H - Kx Vul: N/S >> > D - Kxx >> > C - J87 >> >S - QT84 S - J >> >H - QJxx H - 97x >> >D - Txx D - Qxxx >> >C - Tx C - AQ9xx >> > S - A97 >> > H - AT8x >> > D - AJx >> > C - Kxx >> > >> > S W N E >> >================= >> > 1D* P 1H* P >> > 1N* P 2D* P >> > 3N* P P P >> > >> >1D - unbalanced with long D >> > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) >> > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >> >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >> >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >> >2D - GF Stayman >> >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 >> > >> >OL: S4 >> > >> >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >> >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >> >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >> >distribution). >> > >> >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) >> > >> >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N >actually >> >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >> >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >> >system). > >I find that TDs are much too willing to accept the "I forgot" excuse. Our >Committees use a much more literal interpretation of the footnote in Law 75: > >"...but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken >Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > Note the choice of words: "evidence". Not "proof", nor even "strong" or "convincing" evidence. Yes, it does impose a burden on the pair in question to defend their claim of Mistaken Bid rather than MI, but not a burden that overrides the clear sense of the Laws that players are entitled to make calls inconsistent with their stated agreements, intentionally or otherwise. In the case at hand, the TD and even the opponents were convinced that the actual agreement was correctly stated, based on "evidence" offered. It seems dogmatic to implicitly label their judgement as faulty, if you were not there. Herman, for one, has maintained in the past that he will simply not accept _any_ evidence, including system notes, in these situations. For him, the simple fact of a disparity between explanation and partner's hand is sufficient to rule MI. That's fine, if you're prepared to ignore the Laws which protect the rights of the players to bid outside of their agreed methods. I realize that your position is not necessarily so extreme as Herman's, but it has some of the same flavor of demanding a somewhat higher standard of "evidence" than is set by the Laws, taken in their entirety. >The explanation of their methods may have "made sense". But there are no >system notes to clarify: A) That this was the actual agreement, or B)That >South actually knew that this agreement existed in this auction. And that is >where I find that a problem usually exists. If S was not aware that this >agreement existed or thought that it worked in some other fashion, then there >has been misinformation because one can only surmise that an agreement only >exists when both parties are aware of what it is and how it works. Every >player now knows that when there has been a disagreement, it is always right >to say "I forgot". And in their mind, once they have heard the explanation, >they recognize that they may indeed have forgotten. But when they started the >auction, they thought that things worked differently. That is NOT a "forget", >IMO. And I would have many questions before I would accept that it really was >a "forget". When it happens to me, I am usually well aware that I was >confused about the application of a particular sequence. Even though we might >have had a discussion about it at some point, it is still a mistaken >explanation if I was not really aware that the agreement functioned in a >particular manner. That would mean we didn't have an "agreement". > >I think we've been in this area in the past. For David S - I open 2D and >partner alerts Flannery. Later it is discovered that I have a Weak 2. You >arrive at the table (I should be so lucky:) and find that our card is clearly >marked Flannery. I tell you that my mind slipped and I just forgot. Is that >it? A simple case of Mistaken Bid? Do you delve deeper to find out that: (A) >We hadn't played in a while (B) I don't normally play Flannery (C) My >partner filled out both convention cards and we went over them quickly. Given >the above "facts", I will rule Mistaken Explanation because of what I believe >to be a true lack of an "agreement" since I didn't really know what our >agreement was. And I believe that this is what is meant by that footnote. We >must take a hard look at the "evidence". You are certainly entitled to your belief, but it would be more convincing if it were backed up by the language in the text. In your hypothetical case, I would rule Mistaken bid. Identically filled out convention cards are, after all, "evidence to the contrary", and the Laws explicitly allow you to forget your methods without penalty, beyond that which you will usually pay in the normal course of events. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 12:30:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:30:37 +1100 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 MAA13724 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:30:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZ3SE-00010E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:34:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:11:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 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, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh 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 Sergey Kapustin Liza 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 Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Big Mac 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 Oct 30 12:30:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:30:33 +1100 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 MAA13719 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:30:27 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZ3SD-00010D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:34:19 +0000 Message-ID: <4OmHyfAVFQO2Ew2N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:59:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: three passes????? References: <36389433.78561740@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <36389433.78561740@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy's Desk wrote: >It is agreed by three players that 3 spades was bid, only the opener who was now >in the pass out seat did not see the 3 spade bid. The cards were being picked >up >before the opener's last bid and the opener assumed because of the cards being >picked up that the auction had ended. When told of the 3 spade bid the director >was called as the opener did not bid or pass. The opener stated that a bid >would >have been made over the 3 spade bid. By ruling 3 clubs as the contract, are we >not depriving opener a bid in the last round of bidding which was 3 spades, P, >P, >......which was stated that it would have been 4 diamonds. ..? By the way, the >director's ruling was that the opener, by picking up the bid cards had passed!!! >(it was clear at the table that the director really didn't know what the ruling >should be.) That's a bit different: it seems that 3S was bid. Of course, opener's partner appears to be one of those at fault. The auction does not end with both sides picking up their bidding cards, so I suppose we give opener another go. However, I think *even at club level* this is a case for a PP to both sides, a minimum fine. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 13:40:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:40:32 +1100 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 NAA13868 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:40:27 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZ4Xy-0005L1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:44:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 03:40:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: ss finland MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to report that the YC had 15 tables and the results have been sent to Herman tonight. A good (but not chart topping) winning score, and true to the YC spirit a traveller with 800 in both columns :) Please advise the location of the results at some stage -- 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 Oct 30 15:23:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:23:53 +1100 Received: from sb.net (root@mail.sb.net [209.241.234.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14002 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:23:46 +1100 Received: from 207.205.156.115 (pool-207-205-156-221.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.221]) by sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA28132 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:26:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36394C03.1301@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:19:39 -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 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2penatlycards References: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sb.net id UAA28132 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > LORMANT Philippe wrote: >=20 > >Thank you for your answer but for me the topic of conversation about > >laws 50 and 51 is not closed. >=20 > No problem: I am not always correct, and am always willing to hear > further argument. >=20 > >At first," I am not a lawyer but a director " like says an italian and > >very good colleague whose name is Ricardi Antonio, so I have only to > >apply Laws, not to interpret or to correct it and I read: >=20 > >1=B0- in Law 50 d 2 a, :" for two or more cards, see law 51" >=20 > But it does not say it at the start of the Law. You read certain > items, and then it refers you to L51. In my view that means that those > items apply. >=20 [snip] [s] >=20 > > You say " Law 51 is additional Law to Law 50" ok I understand > > what you mind, but WHY, WHY isn't clearer in the wording? >=20 > I do not know why it is not clearer. it is often difficult when > drafting a Law to see problems in reading it. Until you mentioned this > here on BLML I did not realise there was a difficulty, but I agree now > it has been pointed out that I ca see the ambiguity. >=20 > > May be, could you understand my problems better, if you know that > > I am not only a Director, but the ruling's teacher for French > > Federation. >=20 > I see the problem very well, and it is an excellent one. >=20 > > Amicalement, > > ^ > > ( How do you say that in English ?) >=20 > Friendly? Dany often finishes his posts with the word "Friendly". >=20 [snip] First off, I am not proficient in French at all. However, may I suggest that the best translation of "Amicalement" is "Amicably." This implies both friendliness and is specifically applicable to disputes in which both parties wish not to offend despite different outlooks.=20 As to Law 50 and 51, this is a great question, one which makes be glad to subscribe to blml. My read is that L50 generally applies when there are two or more penalty cards, (DWS's position) but that the real question is whether L50D2a applies.=20 Although the construction of 50D2a appears to support the contention that only L51 applies, L51 has no provision for requiring or forbidding a suit lead. Instead, it says what happens when that occurs with more than one penalty card. Since the provision for requiring or forbidding a suit lead must come from some source, I conclude that L51 refers back to L50D2a. No, it isn't clear -- and the phrasing of L50D2a seems counter to that intention -- but I can't construct an alternative consistent interpretation. To make this clearer, I'd add the word 'also' to the end of the parenthetical phrase (...see also Law 51).=20 --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 16:30:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:30:42 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f147.hotmail.com [207.82.251.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14106 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:30:36 +1100 Received: (qmail 4947 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Oct 1998 05:34:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19981030053418.4946.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.131.133 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:34:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.131.133] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling (long) Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:34:17 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm quite surprised to be writing this, not only because I swore off this thread from the get-go (it's too dangerous for my taste :-), but because it's the first time I have seriously disagreed with Mr. LeBendig (Al, if you prefer - I was taught that is it better to start out formally, and let my elders and betters dictate the pace of familiarity. Darn that private school education). So it is with great trepidation that I descend into the Moskoestrom. >From: AlLeBendig@aol.com >David Stevenson writes: >> David Kent wrote: >> >> >Playing under ACBL rules: > >They're the same everywhere. And I fear that the interpretation seems to be >somewhat the same. > Well, no. The rules are different in each SO (we do have different regulations and definitions than other SO's, for instance; and our interpretation of some things - LA's, ZT, implied partnership agreement - are different from the rest of the world, at least from what I've read here). The Laws are the same (well mostly :-). >>>The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N >>>actually did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even >>>though there were no system notes to back this up - however it made >>>sense when he explained the system). > >I find that TDs are much too willing to accept the "I forgot" excuse. >Our Committees use a much more literal interpretation of the footnote >in Law 75: > >"...but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than >Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > I am perfectly willing to accept a pure, literal interpretation of this footnote. >The explanation of their methods may have "made sense". But there >are no system notes to clarify: A) That this was the actual >agreement, or B)That South actually knew that this agreement existed >in this auction. And that is where I find that a problem usually >exists. If S was not aware that this agreement existed or thought >that it worked in some other fashion, then there has been >misinformation because one can only surmise that an agreement only >exists when both parties are aware of what it is and how it works. I see "evidence to the contrary": N has, at the table and with no time to prepare, presented enough nuances to their system to be able to convince at least one of eir opponents that the bid logically means what was described. I also see evidence of a complicated system, which requires a lot of work to generate and agree on. Requiring evidence in the form of complete system notes is, IMO, significantly closer to the misinterpretation of banning "mistaken bid" than our TD's are in the misinterpretation of being willing to accept "I forgot." For one thing, the "large majority" of members of the ACBL that we seem to be guiding our efforts toward have never made a set of system notes, especially notes detailed enough to provide evidence of meanings of third-round bids; and probably have never seen one. For another, requiring evidence that strong effectively bans pickup partnerships - or new partnerships, or even occasional partnerships - from ever getting a "mistaken bid" ruling; and those are the ones that will most likely make mistaken bids. Finally, I strongly disagree with your B) argument. An agreement exists when a partnership makes it, not when you can prove to Lucien Bouchard that it exists. And anyway, if one can only surmise that an agreement exists when both sides know about it and agree to it, one is also only surmising that since system notes exist, both partners know everything in there and agree to it. I can't even prove that the one regular partner that I have system notes with has actually read them! I would be more suspicious at the AC stage, after N has hours to work the "system" out. >Every player now knows that when there has been a disagreement, it is >always right to say "I forgot". It is always most likely to get you the nicest ruling. It is not right to say "I forgot" unless you did forget. >And in their mind, once they have >heard the explanation, they recognize that they may indeed have >forgotten. But when they started the auction, they thought that >things worked differently. That is NOT a "forget", IMO. ??? When they started the auction, they thought that their agreement was other than what their agreement was? And this isn't "forgetting their agreement?" What is, then? > And I would >have many questions before I would accept that it really was >a "forget". Me too. I would have many questions, and they would have the purpose of finding out whether they have evidence of their agreements. >When it happens to me, I am usually well aware that I >was confused about the application of a particular sequence. Even >though we might have had a discussion about it at some point, it is >still a mistaken explanation if I was not really aware that the >agreement functioned in a particular manner. That would mean we >didn't have an "agreement". > I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I have not abrogated on an agreement because I have forgot it. Or if I have, it's bridge as I never want to play it. As an example, I have an agreement with Mayta to play preemptive jump raises of overcalls. If I forget, then I can't make a jump raise without having a problem - because if I get it right, I was still not really aware that our agreement was what I did, therefore we don't have an agreement, therefore, my partner's (correct) explanation will not fit our agreement; of course if I get it wrong, then partner's correct explanation is a "mistaken explanation" because we have no agreement. >I think we've been in this area in the past. For David S - I open 2D >and partner alerts Flannery. Later it is discovered that I have a >Weak 2. You arrive at the table (I should be so lucky:) and find >that our card is clearly marked Flannery. I tell you that my mind >slipped and I just forgot. Is that it? A simple case of Mistaken >Bid? Yes. >Do you delve deeper to find out that: (A) We hadn't played in a while >(B) I don't normally play Flannery (C) My partner filled out both >convention cards and we went over them quickly. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't - I have "evidence to the contrary" of Mistaken Explanation. Assuming I get this information (maybe I already know it): A) does that mean anything about your agreements? I haven't played with Jared for a year, but if we sat down to play, and agreed to play "our Precision system", I would assume all agreements that were in force when we played it regularly, and I would take great offence if anyone tried to convince me that the year off voids that; B) I don't normally play Precision; in fact, I only do so with Jared. Does that mean that if I open 2D, my partner isn't entitled to assume that I have a three-suiter short in diamonds? And that if I happen to have a standard Weak 2, that partner's explanation is what's wrong, even though it's on our CC? C) In most pickup partnerships, I'd be lucky if they got that far - most often what will happen is that they will have a two-minute throwing of conventions around, and one of them will write up one CC. Likely the other partner won't even see it. So do we assume that all pickup partnerships have no agreements, and that there can be no "evidence to the contrary"? I always thought that a convention card was a synopsis of a partnership's agreements. If it isn't, why have one at all? If it is, why can't they use it as evidence of their agreements? >We must take a hard look at the "evidence". I am well aware that TDs >do not often have the time available to accomplish this. But I wish >they would rule Mistaken Explanation and let the "Offending Side" >have the burden of proof in front of a Committee. > But that is not what the footnote says. It says to assume Mistaken Explanation without "evidence to the contrary". Not "proof". If there is evidence to the contrary, then we should rule Mistaken Bid, or "chose to violate system agreements" - that's what the Law says. >> So in this case you got a correct ruling and a bad board. Shame! > >Maybe so, maybe not... I believe that this is as clear a case as it should be. Anything more is to the detriment of pickup partnerships, occasional partnerships, people who have many and varied partnerships, partnerships that are attempting to add/grow/change their systsm, and partnerships that are playing a very scientific system (because their agreements must be more detailed in specific). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 19:21:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:21:01 +1100 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 TAA14366 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:20:54 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 217 ID# 0-53853L0S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:24:45 -0800 Message-ID: <36397871.31E11908@home.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:27:29 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: What is the ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > "...but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken > Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > The explanation of their methods may have "made sense". But there are no > system notes to clarify: A) That this was the actual agreement, Let's use some common sense here and take the poster's "made sense" at face value, rather than nitpicking. If the agreement (after responder showed 4 cd S already) is that opener on 2D shows 3 cd S-support, or 4 cd H, or bids 2NT with 5 cd D, or bids 3C with 5 cd C, then it indeed would "make sense" that 3NT shows precisely 2-3-4-4! > or B)That > South actually knew that this agreement existed in this auction. Not every partnership has system-notes and *no* partnership that I know of have such notes that say which partner is aware of what agreement, and when! > And that is > where I find that a problem usually exists. If S was not aware that this > agreement existed or thought that it worked in some other fashion, then there > has been misinformation because one can only surmise that an agreement only > exists when both parties are aware of what it is and how it works. Where I find the problem really lies is with people, particularly those in a position of (perceived?) authority, who put their own private spin on the Laws of Contract Bridge. This "awareness" concept is at least new to me, but if Mr LeBendig could quote me some part of the laws that justifies his view I stand corrected. > Even though we might > have had a discussion about it at some point, it is still a mistaken > explanation if I was not really aware that the agreement functioned in a > particular manner. I thought that even in ACBL it was your partner who alerted and explained your calls (assuming no screens and not on-line). Tell me - how is pard to know when you are aware of what part of your agreements? Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? And if this time you were aware, do you feel pard's "explanation" was appropriate? > I think we've been in this area in the past. For David S - I open 2D and > partner alerts Flannery. Later it is discovered that I have a Weak 2. You > arrive at the table (I should be so lucky:) and find that our card is clearly > marked Flannery. I tell you that my mind slipped and I just forgot. Is that > it? A simple case of Mistaken Bid? Do you delve deeper to find out that: (A) > We hadn't played in a while (B) I don't normally play Flannery (C) My > partner filled out both convention cards and we went over them quickly. Given > the above "facts", I will rule Mistaken Explanation because of what I believe > to be a true lack of an "agreement" since I didn't really know what our > agreement was. Why a lack of agreement? What if, in spite of all the above "facts", you *did* remember, but pard explained "Flannery but because of facts (A), (B) and (C) pard might well have a weak 2 in D", and opponents suffered damage from pard's (in your opinion correct) explanation? Since it can't be "ME" whatever you do or pard says, do we rule "Mistaken Bid" by you because you remembered your agreements??? No wonder that the majority of ACBL members, TDs and many AC-members are confused about what the laws are. Between the completely subjective and unilateral views you've expressed here, and Bobby Wolff's amazing actions in Lille, how can we expect anything else? :-( We all have to follow the Laws, whether we like them or not. If we don't like them we use the normal channels to try to change them. We wait until our suggested changes have been adopted before we apply them. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 21:31:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:31:28 +1100 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 VAA14543 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:31:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZBtV-0001SG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:35:02 +0000 Message-ID: <0nvUoBAzOZO2EwFU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:23:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the ruling (long) References: <19981030053418.4946.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19981030053418.4946.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >Al wrote: >>Every player now knows that when there has been a disagreement, it is >>always right to say "I forgot". Does everyone tell lies? Many people are honest. If I played with you, and something like this happened, I would be fairly unhappy to be ruled against, because I know I would never tell a lie in such a case, and I assume you would not. The Laws say that "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" you should rule in a particular way. >It is always most likely to get you the nicest ruling. It is not >right to say "I forgot" unless you did forget. Exactly. [s] >>We must take a hard look at the "evidence". I am well aware that TDs >>do not often have the time available to accomplish this. But I wish >>they would rule Mistaken Explanation and let the "Offending Side" >have >the burden of proof in front of a Committee. You want this when it is not the right ruling by the Laws? >But that is not what the footnote says. It says to assume Mistaken >Explanation without "evidence to the contrary". Not "proof". If there >is evidence to the contrary, then we should rule Mistaken Bid, or "chose >to violate system agreements" - that's what the Law says. Proof is certainly not the same as evidence. What are we trying to achieve? To punish people for not spending hours producing system notes when a correct ruling should go their way? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 30 22:34:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:34:04 +1100 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 WAA14698 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:33:59 +1100 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZCsF-0003Km-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:37:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:34:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: 12th trick revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I felt a little unhappy about this - although it seems a RFTLB ruling (it's all this stuff about the Law-makers' intentions that perhaps confuses the issue) West is declarer on lead in a H contract He leads the H6 North plays the D7 and South wins with the K The last 4 cards are put on the table and declarer tells North that he has revoked - "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for revoking at trick twelve." Is there? - A 7 - - x 76 - - - - x - K5 - - -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 00:11:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:11:15 +1100 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 AAA15316 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:11:02 +1100 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 IAA18527 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:30:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030081603.006f33f8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:16:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <19981027174913.3969.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael wrote: >Yes. However, in my messages on this topic, I said many >times "alert and immediately give first-level explanation". >Now, absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be >considered standard. Alert still gives a single piece of >information, but now that information is "non-standard; explanation >coming". It is no longer limited, because we are not limited to >just "Alert". Absense of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered what? Standard, you say? What does that mean? >"Alert any call with a non-standard meaning. Pass the 5-second >explanation to opponents immediately, and be prepared to give a >more detailed one if asked for." > >This is not complex. I do not see where there could be problems. >I am willing to be convinced otherwise. This could mean either of two things, both of which are indeed quite simple: (a) I alert anything that I think is non-standard, i.e. I alert whatever I feel like, or (b) I alert anything that my opponents might think is non-standard, i.e. I alert every bid I make. >That doesn't mean that I need a more complicated alert structure >than "alert and explain anything non-standard." With the rule "alert anything alertable", the SO decides by fiat what is or isn't alertable, and everyone knows, albeit they might not care for the choices. If the rule were "alert anything non-standard", we could argue for years over what was alertable. Of course, our SOs could (and undoubtedly would) then decide by fiat what is or isn't standard. But that would make "non-standard" synonymous with "alertable", and nothing would change, except that "standard", which is a perfectly good English word, would have lost its dictionary meaning and become just another bit of officialese. 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 Oct 31 00:45:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:45:14 +1100 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 AAA17237 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:45:07 +1100 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 JAA19317 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:04:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030085001.006f5198@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:50:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: <0F1J00ILQ6OJYY@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> References: <3.0.1.32.19981027110420.006b61ec@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bridge is a game played with cards, not with extraneous remarks (which aren't even technically legal). I see no possible reason why saying "I'll trump that" and then playing a club (when spades are trump) should be treated any differently from playing a club and then saying "I trumped that". Either the expressed intention is what counts, or the card played is what counts. If you allow the player to substitute a trump for his club in the first case, you must, to be consistent, do so in the second case as well. 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 Oct 31 01:09:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:09:25 +1100 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 BAA17295 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:09:16 +1100 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 JAA20110 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:28:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030091425.006f67ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:14:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: minor penalty card In-Reply-To: <3610754E.6F1E@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:51 PM 9/28/98 -0700, Bruce wrote: >Is it my imagination or is law 50D relatively vague in when a minor >penalty card is played. Argument arose at table about such. Declarer is >East and declares in two hearts. South leads medium club taken by north >with ace and she leads small club back. Taken by east with King and as >south plays the three the two (hidden behind three) falls on table. Put >to one side as minor penalty card. East now plays ace spade and small >towards king/queen. Wins with king and plays queen discarding loosing >club. South now ruffs with small heart. East complains that she thought >the minor penalty card had to be played and would not have played that >way if she knew otherwise. Law 50D only refers to play of cards of same >suit and does not specify that the minor penalty card has to be played >at any other point in time thus meaning that it may stay on the table >until the last trick. Should not the law be a little specific about when >it must or may be played? Or is the ambiguity meant to be. The director >ruled that the ruff stood as did a second one later and no change of >play based on easts own misunderstanding of laws. > >Comments please. The director ruled correctly, unless it was his own original ruling that misled East, in which case he should apply L82C. If course, if he ruled by reading L50D directly from TFLB then it was a clear error, as he should have read L50C. On a related point, under L93B3, can a committee make an adjustment under L82C, or only a recommendation? Or does it depend on the the nature of the alleged error? 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 Oct 31 01:12:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:12:24 +1100 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 BAA17311 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:12:13 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-121.uunet.be [194.7.13.121]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19270 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:15:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36399469.1B3DD856@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:26:49 +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: Re: 2penatlycards References: <363812E7.8C9@wanadoo.fr> <36384E55.8DEC5F3@village.uunet.be> <36389D79.1904@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sent by mistake to me in stead of the list : LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Claude DADOUN wrote: > > > > > > I am not agree with David Stevenson > > > In my opinion we should not considere than L51 is incomplete. > > > L50 send to L51 not the opposit. > > > L51 2.b does say he may prohibit the lead and that is all. > > > So I think than the probihition should not remain in case of 2 penalty > > > cards. > > > > > > Claude Dadoun > > > > What a delight to find some new well-qualified members on the list. > > > > While I find that the Law should be as David explained it, there is > > quite something to say for Claude's point of view. > > > > I have even taken the french version of the Laws (I have one since this > > week) to see if this is the result of a faulty translation. > > > > Let's see. > > > > -L50 defines a penalty card, and applies both to one or more of them. > > -L50A says it must stay on the table, and applies also to more than one. > > -L50B tells us when it is a minor, but of course 2 are always majors. > > -L50C has no effect. > > -L50D1 tells that a major penalty card must be played. It does also deal > > with the problem of 2, so L51 is not really necessary to deal with this. > > -L50D2 tells about partner's lead restrictions. It says declarer can > > require or prohibit (with addition 'as long as he retains the lead'), > > and then states to check L51 in case of more than one penalty card. > > L50D2 also states the penalty card may be taken up again. > > -L51A repeats what is already said in L50D1, but adds 'at that turn', > > which is logical as at the next turn the other card will probably have > > to be played. Not everything of L50D1 is repeated though, and we may > > ask ourselves the question if this means anything. > > -L51B then deals with the complications of two or more penalty cards and > > restrictions on partner's lead. Here too, not everything of L50 is > > repeated. > > > > >From the word order in both Laws (both in english and in french) I > > deduce that it must have been the intention of the WBFLC to have L51 > > serve as a expansion of L50, but that otherwise, everything in L50 > > remains in force. > > > > It is not clear in the literal text that this is so though, and it is > > probably one for Grattan's memory board. > > But I presume that one word from Ton may be enough to tell us which is > > the correct interpretation. > > > > - > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html original message from Philippe : Good evening, > > In 1997 we had a meeting in Lille with Ton K. and Cl.Dadoun and I spoke > about Law 51 . It was before the adoption of the new code and in view > to contribute to the new text.Ton said that indeed it shall > (will?,should?) be better to specify that prohibition remains in law 51. > No change...then I conclude it was not an accident but with full > knowledge of facts and I am obliged to think that the Draft Committee > wishes that the prohibition does not remain in this case.Otherwise it > was very easy to specify, no? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 01:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:40:24 +1100 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 BAA17373 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:40:14 +1100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id OAA00549; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:25:23 +0100 (MET) (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 OAA13812; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:25:22 +0100 (MET) 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 OAA10079; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:25:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3639BE41.EE2C3509@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:25:21 +0100 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@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: michael amos Subject: Re: 12th trick revoke References: <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: > > I felt a little unhappy about this - although it seems a RFTLB ruling > (it's all this stuff about the Law-makers' intentions that perhaps > confuses the issue) > > West is declarer on lead in a H contract > He leads the H6 North plays the D7 and South wins with the K > The last 4 cards are put on the table and declarer tells North that he > has revoked - "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for > revoking at trick twelve." > > Is there? > > - > A > 7 > - > > - x > 76 - > - - > - x > > - > K5 > - > - There is in general no penalty for a revoke. However, there is always one of the folowing appropriate: a. Correction of the revoke b. Establishment of the revoke [with in some cases an ensuing penalty] In the case of a revoke in trick 12, establishment is irrelevant, but the revoke must be corrected (Law 64D1). After the correction, the NOS (i.e. East) may withdraw his card (Law 62C1) [and replace it] and if he chooses to do so, South may also withdraw his card (Law 62C2). BUT, if East does not change the card played in trick 12 - and why should he -, the Heart King may NOT be withdraws and West wins the last trick with the 7 of Hearts. This all appears to be a rather trivial application of the Laws. Did I miss something? -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 01:40:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:40:27 +1100 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 BAA17378 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:40:21 +1100 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 JAA21271 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:59:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030094532.006f6928@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:45:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: BLML (Was: Re: LOOT? revoke?) In-Reply-To: <36374749.F9E4F388@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 10/28/98 +0200, Dany wrote: >My opinion is that there should be a public forum with two aims : >1. To inform the WBFLC about troubles implementing the laws. >2. To get some advises about promulgators' intentions , specific >problems etc... Perhaps there should be, but BLML isn't it. Our primary focus is on "police" issues (how existing laws are, or should be, applied), not on "legislative" issues (what future laws will be, or should be, written). Our membership consists overwhelmingly of "police" (and their "victims"), and our purpose is to communicate with one another, not with an external body of WBFLC members or other "promulgators". >Today - as much as I know , the BLML is the only existing forum >where its members try to discuss the issues above . There is >no doubt - here are many , too many for most of us , messages , >but i disagree with Richard at this percentage - I believe that >less than 10% are relevant for every person.......... Yes, there's a lot of overlap between the concerns of the police and the concerns of the legislators, so if BLML can also serve as a communications channel to the legislators, so much the better. But if, as Dany suggests, we need a forum dedicated exclusively to the back-and-forth exchange of information between TDs/players and law-writers, then we should create a new, separate, forum for that purpose. 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 Oct 31 02:11:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:11:58 +1100 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 CAA17636 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:11:52 +1100 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 KAA22699 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:31:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030101703.006fecc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:17:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981029035310.007b37c0@magi.com> References: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:53 AM 10/29/98 -0500, David wrote: >Playing under ACBL rules: > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > H - Kx Vul: N/S > D - Kxx > C - J87 >S - QT84 S - J >H - QJxx H - 97x >D - Txx D - Qxxx >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > S - A97 > H - AT8x > D - AJx > C - Kxx > > S W N E >================= > 1D* P 1H* P > 1N* P 2D* P > 3N* P P P > >1D - unbalanced with long D > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D >2D - GF Stayman >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > >OL: S4 > >W led the S4 (playing usually 3rd and 5th, except when the 3rd best may be >'active'). The first 3 tricks were spades and I (as East) called the >director at this point (i.e. declarer did not have the specified >distribution). > >Result: NS +600 (i.e. 3S + 2H + 3D + 1C = 9 tricks) > >The director ruled that the result stands (after clarifying that N actually >did descibe the S hand as per their agreements - even though there were no >system notes to back this up - however it made sense when he explained the >system). > >Would you let the result stand? Would you give NS a PP? If so, would this >accrue to E/W? Can you back this up with law numbers? Yes. No. N/A. L75B. The ruling rests on the determination "that N actually did describe the S hand as per their agreements". Once this is determined, the rest follows. This is strictly a reading of the law; I don't think that "playing under ACBL rules" can be relevant. 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 Oct 31 02:12:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:12:48 +1100 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 CAA17656 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:12:41 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id KAA27445 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:17:07 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) Message-ID: <1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343@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, 30 Oct 1998 10:17:07 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 9:01 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael wrote: >>Yes. However, in my messages on this topic, I said many >>times "alert and immediately give first-level explanation". >>Now, absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be >>considered standard. Alert still gives a single piece of >>information, but now that information is "non-standard; explanation >>coming". It is no longer limited, because we are not limited to >>just "Alert". >Absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered what? >Standard, you say? What does that mean? Eric has asked a very short concise question. Sadly, I don't think that it is possible to provide an answer anywhere near as succinctly. I believe that alert regulations have the potential of being one of the most complex areas for bridge legislation. In an on-line playing environment the issue has the potential of being even more complex. Standard is as standard does. The definition of what set of bids should be construed as "standard" is intrinsically linked to specific groups of players. Polling a random group in Boston about what is the "standard" range for a one No Trump opening would likely suggest that 15-17 HCP is "standard". Asking the same question in Britain (I suspect) will yield a very different answer. Hence, the first issue that needs to be considered in trying to define "standard" is the specific group of bridge players who will be making use of this definition. It is much easier to arrive at a definition of what should be considered "standard" for a relatively some, geographically condense set of players than for the various world -wide, multi-lingual online bridge clubs that are evolving. In the case of the EBU or the ACBL, it might be possible to try to specifically define a particular set of bids that represent "standard" bidding. I do not believe that this is possible (or necessarily desirable) to attempt to do the same for on line bridge. Instead, I believe that on line bridge may very well benefit from a substantially different approach towards alerting than that which is used by any of the existing zonal organizations. I am going to restrict the remainder of this letter to specific issues that I feel are related to the on line playing environment. >From my perspective, there are at least four different, distinct ways that a partnership can use to convey information to the other pairs at the table. A prealert of methods Alerts of individual bids that deviate from the expected usage Explanations of the meaning of particular bids Convention cards Each of these methods has certain specific advantages and disadvantages in exchanging information. As I have mentioned before on this mailing list, the weakness of the alert system is that the greater the number of bids that are "alertable", the less information that the alert "flag" conveys. One specific goal in designing an alert system should be to attempt to minimize the number of bids that are alertable. My major objection with the EBU standard of alerting any artificial bid is that this introduces so much "noise" that it essentially drowns out any signal that the alert should otherwise convey. One concept that I believe has a great deal of merit is to attempt to use some type of "pre-alert" of methods to decrease the number of bids that must be alerted during the course of an auction. For example, if I am using a five card major based system in the UK, currently I need to alert all of my 1C opening because 1C could potentially be opened on a 3 card suit. I think that it would be much more valuable to attempt to convey this type of information by means of a pre-alert of methods perhaps supplemented with a written explanation during the course of the auction and reserve the alert for a truly unusual meaning such as 1C = Forcing, or 1C = FERT. If we are going to attempt to systematically approach the topic of defining standards for full disclosure of information, there are a number of different issues that need to be grappled with. Throughout my discussions, I have been assuming standards that I think should be applied for the most "serious" types of online bridge games. However, this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. The second issue that should be considered is the topic of the prealert. A prealert should be a very succinct summary of the methodology used by a partnership. The prealert should describe information such as Opening No Trump Range Major suit opening style Strong/forcing openings 2/1 forcing to game? 2N? Weird stuff Whether or no you play a forcing NT is probably too much information for the prealert. Part of trying to define the prealert should be considering what types of information a prealert should be assumed to provide. As an example, if I prealert a five card major opening system, this has obvious consequences for the style of my minor suit openings. If we are willing to accept my basic premise - that a prealert system should be used to decrease the number of bids that require an actual alert - than as part of this we must consider what type of inference can be logically drawn from a particular type of prealert. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 02:26:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:26:56 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com ([207.227.70.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA17723 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:26:50 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zZGVf-001b6cC; Fri, 30 Oct 98 10:30 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:30:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 12th trick revoke In-Reply-To: <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_2563105==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_2563105==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:34 AM 10/30/98 , michael amos wrote: >I felt a little unhappy about this - although it seems a RFTLB ruling >(it's all this stuff about the Law-makers' intentions that perhaps >confuses the issue) > > >West is declarer on lead in a H contract >He leads the H6 North plays the D7 and South wins with the K >The last 4 cards are put on the table and declarer tells North that he >has revoked - "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for >revoking at trick twelve." > >Is there? > > - > A > 7 > - > >- x >76 - >- - >- x > > - > K5 > - > - North is correct, there is no penalty for revoking at trick twelve. HOWEVER, he will find that it does indeed matter. Law 62D1 requires that any revoke on trick twelve must be corrected. South has already played HK to trick twelve and there is nothing in the laws that will allow him to change that play when North's revoke is corrected. The result is that NS lose the last trick, which they would have won if North had not revoked. John S. Nichols --=====================_2563105==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:34 AM 10/30/98 , michael amos wrote:
>I felt a little unhappy about this - although it seems a RFTLB ruling
>(it's all this stuff about the Law-makers' intentions that perhaps
>confuses the issue)
>
>
>West is declarer on lead in a H contract
>He leads the H6    North plays the D7 and South wins with the K
>The last 4 cards are put on the table and declarer tells North that he
>has revoked - "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for
>revoking at trick twelve."
>
>Is there?
>
>          -
>          A
>          7
>          -
>
>-                x
>76               -
>-                -
>-                x
>
>          -
>          K5
>          -
>          -

North is correct, there is no penalty for revoking at trick twelve.

HOWEVER, he will find that it does indeed matter.

Law 62D1 requires that any revoke on trick twelve must be corrected.

South has already played HK to trick twelve and there is nothing in the laws that will allow him to change that play when North's revoke is corrected. 

The result is that NS lose the last trick,  which they would have won if North had not revoked.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_2563105==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 03:10:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:10:16 +1100 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 DAA17870 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:10:10 +1100 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 AA255374042; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:14:02 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.Uqss.uquebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA263604040; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:14:01 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:13:49 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Re:revoke 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, Nancy wrote: The revoke penalty is probably the most basic and important > penalty provision in the laws. It is needed so often that not > only TDs, but also players want to understand it. > > I find it very unfortunate that the law book does not explain > what that penalty is in words that readers can understand. Any > player or TD should be able to look up something as simple as the > revoke penalty in the book and get an answer that can be used > without taking a TD course. That is not possible now: very few > people, if any, understand L64A2 unless they're told what it is > supposed to mean. I fully agree that players should understand basics laws and I try to promote this idea around me. To help on revoke laws, I distribute occasionnally in clubs a flow chart illustrating them (from my French publication on Laws contaning 32 charts). I tried to attach the English Powerpoint-95 file on revoke but it is too= large for the list (more than 40K....). In am working with ACBL on the English version of these charts and hope to put them on a WEB in a near future. In the meanwhile, I can send the revoke file (French or English version) on demand so you may use it freely in your clubs....but not in a sold publication please.... =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 03:53:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:53:35 +1100 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 DAA18010 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:53:27 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZHrR-0000uz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:57:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:56:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 12th trick revoke In-Reply-To: <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk>, michael amos writes >I felt a little unhappy about this - although it seems a RFTLB ruling >(it's all this stuff about the Law-makers' intentions that perhaps >confuses the issue) > > >West is declarer on lead in a H contract >He leads the H6 North plays the D7 and South wins with the K >The last 4 cards are put on the table and declarer tells North that he >has revoked - "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for >revoking at trick twelve." > >Is there? > > - > A > 7 > - > >- x >76 - >- - >- x > > - > K5 > - > - But a revoke at trick 12 MUST be corrected. 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 Sat Oct 31 04:28:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:28:33 +1100 Received: from ws.icl.co.uk (cfmgw.iclnet.co.uk [194.176.223.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18256 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:28:26 +1100 Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA29073; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:34:03 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06552; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:31:09 GMT Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id RAA04531; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:22:52 GMT X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Fri, 30 Oct 98 14:27:39 +0000 X400-Received: by mta fel01x4 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Fri, 30 Oct 98 14:15:47 +0000 X400-Received: by mta POL0103 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Fri, 30 Oct 98 15:29:51 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Fri, 30 Oct 98 15:29:00 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 98 15:29:00 +0100 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G3002163396500000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <14384.780315767@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3hN7HGAYRaO2EwUk@mamos.demon.co.uk> Importance: normal Subject: RE:12th trick revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos: >... "It doesn't matter" says North, "there's no penalty for >revoking at trick twelve." > >Is there? See 62D and 64B6 Janek Romanski ___________________________________________________________________ Tel:+48-22-6310566 Fax:+48-22-6320979 Mobile: +48 601403308 Email: jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk X 400: S:Romanski G:Jan I:F O:ICL OU1:POL0103 P:ICL A:GOLD 400 C:PL From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 05:01:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:01:30 +1100 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 FAA18360 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:01:23 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zZIvB-0002jT-01 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:05:14 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:48:49 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Card played by defender? Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:48:47 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau posted a reply on this thread which I have unfortunately deleted but the gist of it was that if a player's intention mattered more than actual physical events then it does not matter in which order the defender names one card and plays another. I disagree with this. IMO Law 45 allows any player to name the card that he intends to play and *at that moment* it becomes the played card. If he then exposes some other card then that is dealt with either by Law 48 or 49. If a defender first plays a card then that is the played card and the subsequent naming of another card in his hand is then covered specifically by Law 49. The two situations are therefore completely different and intention does not matter at all in the second case. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 05:08:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:08:31 +1100 Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18416 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:08:24 +1100 Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp96-2.mosquitonet.com [207.149.68.96]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA17563 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:12:20 -0900 Message-ID: <363A0248.7BF1E0CB@mosquitonet.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:15:36 -0900 From: Gordon Bower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling References: <199810290542.VAA10866@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981030101703.006fecc4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 03:53 AM 10/29/98 -0500, David wrote: > > >Playing under ACBL rules: > > > > S - K6532 Dealer: S > > H - Kx Vul: N/S > > D - Kxx > > C - J87 > >S - QT84 S - J > >H - QJxx H - 97x > >D - Txx D - Qxxx > >C - Tx C - AQ9xx > > S - A97 > > H - AT8x > > D - AJx > > C - Kxx > > > > S W N E > >================= > > 1D* P 1H* P > > 1N* P 2D* P > > 3N* P P P > > > >1D - unbalanced with long D > > or 15-17 balanced (C mayber longer than D) > > or 18-19 balanced with D as the better minor > >1H - 4+S (NB: 1m-1S = 4+H) > >1N - bal 15-17, C may be longer than D > >2D - GF Stayman > >3N - North identified this as 2-3-4-4 > > > >OL: S4 [snip] I think the director is right to rule correct explanation, no adjustment. Nor do I think NS should be subject to a PP for the 3NT bid or their explanation of their system. But 1D-1S=hearts and 1D-1H=spades is only a legal agreement in ACBLand if the 1D opening is *always* 15+HCP, and apparently minimum openers with long diamonds still open 1D in their system. (Likewise over 1C - artifical non-game-forcing responses are in general only allowed if 1C was strong.) Why is the director letting them play this? Or was this a Mid- or Super-Chart event from the last NABC? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 05:09:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:09:31 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18433 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:09:25 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.b4)/8.8.8/(BU-S-06/23/98-b7)) with ESMTP id NAA08319; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:13:17 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA20210; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:13:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199810301813.NAA20210@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: What is the ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:13:15 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: [significant portions deleted] >>I thought that even in ACBL it was your partner who alerted and >>explained your calls (assuming no screens and not on-line). Tell me - >>how is pard to know when you are aware of what part of your agreements? >>Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is >>sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? And if this >>time you were aware, do you feel pard's "explanation" was appropriate? If your partner is aware of your tendency to forget a certain bid, then it is certainly appropriate to include that possibility as part of the explanation. After all, he is aware of that possibility, and if his hand and/or the future auction (but not your mannerisms, of course) indicates that you have indeed forgotten, he might even choose an action on that basis (at his own risk). The opponents are entitled to the same chance. As long as you make clear what the actual agreement is, opponents cannot claim to be deceived when you also include one or more possible alternative "misinterpretations". [Mr. LeBendig:] >>> For David S - I open 2D and >>> partner alerts Flannery. Later it is discovered that I have a Weak 2. You >>> arrive at the table (I should be so lucky:) and find that our card is clearly >>> marked Flannery. I tell you that my mind slipped and I just forgot. Is that >>> it? A simple case of Mistaken Bid? Do you delve deeper to find out that: (A) >>> We hadn't played in a while (B) I don't normally play Flannery (C) My >>> partner filled out both convention cards and we went over them quickly. Given >>> the above "facts", I will rule Mistaken Explanation because of what I believe >>> to be a true lack of an "agreement" since I didn't really know what our >>> agreement was. [Jan Kamras:] >>Why a lack of agreement? What if, in spite of all the above "facts", >>you *did* remember, but pard explained "Flannery but because of facts >>(A), (B) and (C) pard might well have a weak 2 in D", and opponents >>suffered damage from pard's (in your opinion correct) explanation? Since >>it can't be "ME" whatever you do or pard says, do we rule "Mistaken Bid" >>by you because you remembered your agreements??? Here is a perfect example. I think pard's explanation is a very good one, since it embodies all poignant facts in the partnership history which relate to the issue at hand. As your opponent I would appreciate such a complete explanation. I think that such an explanation would even satisfy Mr LeBendig, yes? By the way, a subtle distinction: pards explanation was proper because it was an attempt to convey the partnership agreement. An explanation such as "I take that to be Flannery" is not proper, because that is an attempt to interpret a bid. I think the opponents are entitled to a complete explanation of your partnership agreements, but are not entitled to know how you interpret a bid or signal. An example: I once had an altercation in the Spingold with a very well-known player when he pointed to my partner's 2C discard and asked me what that meant. I replied, "As I said at the beginning of the hand, our 1st discard is Roman: an odd card is encouraging, and an even card is a Lavinthal-style suit preference signal. Later discards are usually count." He continued, "so the 2C means he likes diamonds?" I repeated my explanation of our agreements. We went around again, until the director was summoned. I explained the situation, and told hime that I had explained our agreements completely, but I wouldnt interpret a specific card for him. The director instructed us to continue. Declarer interpreted the 2C as a diamond signal and went down. Unfortunately for him, the 2C was my partner's *second* discard, a fact he had forgotten, and one that I was in no mood to remind him of. The director agreed with me. --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 05:27:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:27:00 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f176.hotmail.com [207.82.251.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA18525 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:26:53 +1100 Received: (qmail 13034 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Oct 1998 18:30:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19981030183044.13033.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.202 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:30:42 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.202] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:30:42 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael wrote: > >Absense of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered >what? Standard, you say? What does that mean? > I did, actually, give a definition in each of my previous messages. That definition was "Alert (and explain) any call whose meaning you would not assume adequately if made by opponents you have never before met." It isn't perfect, but I think in a gentlemanly game (not meaning to ignore women here; but I don't think "ladylike" has the same connotation) it will work. In "Championship" type events, you may need more specific rules - but then again, maybe not. We should hold our experts to a higher standard - and that includes the expectation that our experts would not attempt to win by infringing L75A (especially the fully and freely part). Pre-alerts (basically consisting of a one-line description of your system, I would think) will minimize the "Oh, I'm alerting 1H because it requires (or doesn't require) 5 hearts". >>"Alert any call with a non-standard meaning. Pass the 5-second >>explanation to opponents immediately, and be prepared to give a >>more detailed one if asked for." >> >>This is not complex. I do not see where there could be problems. >>I am willing to be convinced otherwise. > >This could mean either of two things, both of which are indeed quite >simple: > >(a) I alert anything that I think is non-standard, i.e. I alert >whatever I feel like, or > >(b) I alert anything that my opponents might think is non-standard, >i.e. I alert every bid I make. > I think you are oversimplifying here - "bridge knowledge" and "one line system summary" will remove a lot of those alerts in b). However, I don't mind either explanation (if I'm allowed to twist them around :-)... a) I have just reread L40B. I actually think that I just rewrote it with my definition of "standard" (provided the "regulations of the SO" are "alert, and immediately give one-line explanation to opponents"). You can alert "whatever you like", but if you infringe on L40B, enjoy the penalties that go along with it (and L40C, and L21). b) privided we can come up with a way to comfortably deal with the people who are concerned about "memory aids" (and code-wise, it's not that hard - setting up the system notes, OTOH, is), I see nothing wrong with "alerting every bid I make" - which yes, will make alerts non-useful, so let's remove them - and "one-line" explaining them, immediately, to opponents. After all, there's nothing in the Laws (except under UI, which isn't applicable here) that says you can't tell your opponents what everything in your system means. >>That doesn't mean that I need a more complicated alert structure >>than "alert and explain anything non-standard." > >With the rule "alert anything alertable", the SO decides by fiat what >is or isn't alertable, and everyone knows, albeit they might not care >for the choices. If the rule were "alert anything non-standard", we >could argue for years over what was alertable. > We could. I would hope, however, that bridge players are more "gentlemanly" and less "lawyerly" and would bend over backwards to follow L40B. But that's part of my belief that the spirit of the Laws is very clear, and we should be working with our education, regulation and enforcement to return bridge to the "gentlemanly" game that the Laws expect. >Of course, our SOs could (and undoubtedly would) then decide by fiat >what is or isn't standard. But that would make "non-standard" >synonymous with "alertable", and nothing would change, except that >"standard", which is a perfectly good English word, would have lost >its dictionary meaning and become just another bit of officialese. > Eric, if "standard" is a perfectly good English word with a dictionary meaning you could reasonably understand, then you know what to do. Alert anything non-standard. Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 05:54:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:54:45 +1100 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 FAA18725 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 05:54:38 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-16.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.160]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA23243; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:58:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <363A0C1F.C6C6314A@idt.net> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:57:35 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can't we eliminate the term "standard" from this conversation? It just creates trouble by imposing one bidding system or another as a memory chore for someone. "Natural", it seems to me, would be a much more useful term, that we can all understand, as long as we grant that bids can be both natural AND conventional, like the Roman Jump overcalls mentioned in some other posts. Irv Richard Willey wrote: > > ---------- > From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 9:01 AM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, > > At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael wrote: > > >>Yes. However, in my messages on this topic, I said many > >>times "alert and immediately give first-level explanation". > >>Now, absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be > >>considered standard. Alert still gives a single piece of > >>information, but now that information is "non-standard; explanation > >>coming". It is no longer limited, because we are not limited to > >>just "Alert". > > >Absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered > what? > >Standard, you say? What does that mean? > > Eric has asked a very short concise question. Sadly, I don't think that > it is possible to provide an answer anywhere near as succinctly. I > believe that alert regulations have the potential of being one of the > most complex areas for bridge legislation. In an on-line playing > environment the issue has the potential of being even more complex. > > Standard is as standard does. The definition of what set of bids should > be construed as "standard" is intrinsically linked to specific groups of > players. Polling a random group in Boston about what is the "standard" > range for a one No Trump opening would likely suggest that 15-17 HCP is > "standard". Asking the same question in Britain (I suspect) will yield a > very different answer. Hence, the first issue that needs to be > considered in trying to define "standard" is the specific group of bridge > players who will be making use of this definition. It is much easier to > arrive at a definition of what should be considered "standard" for a > relatively some, geographically condense set of players than for the > various world -wide, multi-lingual online bridge clubs that are evolving. > In the case of the EBU or the ACBL, it might be possible to try to > specifically define a particular set of bids that represent "standard" > bidding. I do not believe that this is possible (or necessarily > desirable) to attempt to do the same for on line bridge. Instead, I > believe that on line bridge may very well benefit from a substantially > different approach towards alerting than that which is used by any of the > existing zonal organizations. I am going to restrict the remainder of > this letter to specific issues that I feel are related to the on line > playing environment. > > >From my perspective, there are at least four different, distinct ways > that a partnership can use to convey information to the other pairs at > the table. > > A prealert of methods > Alerts of individual bids that deviate from the expected usage > Explanations of the meaning of particular bids > Convention cards > > Each of these methods has certain specific advantages and disadvantages > in exchanging information. As I have mentioned before on this mailing > list, the weakness of the alert system is that the greater the number of > bids that are "alertable", the less information that the alert "flag" > conveys. One specific goal in designing an alert system should be to > attempt to minimize the number of bids that are alertable. My major > objection with the EBU standard of alerting any artificial bid is that > this introduces so much "noise" that it essentially drowns out any signal > that the alert should otherwise convey. > > One concept that I believe has a great deal of merit is to attempt to use > some type of "pre-alert" of methods to decrease the number of bids that > must be alerted during the course of an auction. > > For example, if I am using a five card major based system in the UK, > currently I need to alert all of my 1C opening because 1C could > potentially be opened on a 3 card suit. I think that it would be much > more valuable to attempt to convey this type of information by means of a > pre-alert of methods perhaps supplemented with a written explanation > during the course of the auction and reserve the alert for a truly > unusual meaning such as 1C = Forcing, or 1C = FERT. > > If we are going to attempt to systematically approach the topic of > defining standards for full disclosure of information, there are a number > of different issues that need to be grappled with. Throughout my > discussions, I have been assuming standards that I think should be > applied for the most "serious" types of online bridge games. However, > this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. > > The second issue that should be considered is the topic of the prealert. > A prealert should be a very succinct summary of the methodology used by > a partnership. The prealert should describe information such as > > Opening No Trump Range > Major suit opening style > Strong/forcing openings > 2/1 forcing to game? 2N? > Weird stuff > > Whether or no you play a forcing NT is probably too much information for > the prealert. > > Part of trying to define the prealert should be considering what types of > information a prealert should be assumed to provide. As an example, if I > prealert a five card major opening system, this has obvious consequences > for the style of my minor suit openings. If we are willing to accept my > basic premise - that a prealert system should be used to decrease the > number of bids that require an actual alert - than as part of this we > must consider what type of inference can be logically drawn from a > particular type of prealert. > > Richard > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 06:14:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 06:14:15 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com ([207.82.251.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA18760 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 06:14:09 +1100 Received: (qmail 1867 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Oct 1998 04:18:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19981030041834.1865.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.34 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:18:32 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.34] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:18:32 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No non-ACBL content here :-) >But 1D-1S=hearts and 1D-1H=spades is only a legal agreement in >ACBLand [more correctly, under the General Convention Chart - mdf] >if the 1D opening is *always* 15+HCP, and apparently minimum openers >with long diamonds still open 1D in their system. (Likewise over 1C - >artifical non-game-forcing responses are in general only allowed if >1C was strong.) Why is the director letting them play this? Or was >this a Mid- or Super-Chart event from the last NABC? > Or from a regional? Or from a club, who chooses to have Mid-chart or Superchart, or even anything they like that doesn't violate the Laws or ACBL's "specific disallows"? The GCC is only applicable by default to tournaments that haven't specified anything else. Just venting (because one of my pet peeves is that "we provide the mid-chart, so we can show it to Bulletin-writers who would like a chance to play some different conventions. It's not our fault that it's almost never used, and we see no reason to encourage it's use, either." attitude of the ACBL). Michael (whose Halloween club game a couple of years ago had a system show up where the opening 4C bid asked LHO what (s)he was doing after the game :-). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 06:22:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 06:22:11 +1100 Received: from proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18803 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 06:22:04 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA21068 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:25:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981030142455.007b3920@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:24:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 10/30/98 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: >>Absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered >what? >>Standard, you say? What does that mean? > >Eric has asked a very short concise question. Sadly, I don't think that >it is possible to provide an answer anywhere near as succinctly. I >believe that alert regulations have the potential of being one of the >most complex areas for bridge legislation. In an on-line playing >environment the issue has the potential of being even more complex. > >Standard is as standard does. The definition of what set of bids should >be construed as "standard" is intrinsically linked to specific groups of >players. I don't believe there is any need to use 'standard' in alert regulations. Instead of wordings like "A jump that has a non-standard meaning" which rely upon knowledge of a standard, wordings like "A jump that is non-forcing" should be used. You can replace 'standard' with whatever term you wish to refer to a base system for comparison and I still believe it would be an error to use that term in the alert regulations. You can effect the use of standard, however. Suppose it is standard that a 2NT response to a minor suit opening shows a balanced game forcing hand. Rather than say "Alert non standard uses of 2NT," say "Alert 2NT when it is not balanced and game forcing." I know Richard is familiar with Blue Team Club. And, I bet he agrees it would be absurd for alert regulations to be "Alert whatever is not standard Blue Tram Club." Though this may make perfect sense to him. Any reference in the alert regulations to standard must be accompanied with a definition of standard. I maintain that instead of reference to standard, universal terms like forcing, artificial, puppet, relay, conventional, etc. should be used. It then becomes vital to have firm definitions of these terms. >>From my perspective, there are at least four different, distinct ways >that a partnership can use to convey information to the other pairs at >the table. > >A prealert of methods >Alerts of individual bids that deviate from the expected usage Deviate from whose expected usage? >Explanations of the meaning of particular bids >Convention cards > >Each of these methods has certain specific advantages and disadvantages >in exchanging information. As I have mentioned before on this mailing >list, the weakness of the alert system is that the greater the number of >bids that are "alertable", the less information that the alert "flag" >conveys. One specific goal in designing an alert system should be to >attempt to minimize the number of bids that are alertable. I'm not sure I buy this. A goal might be to simplify the alert regulations. If a set of complex rules result in 25% of bids being alerted and a much simpler set of rules results in 35% of bids being alerted, it might be right to select the simple set of rules. Besides, what reduces the number of alerts in Boston will not necessarily reduce the number of alerts in London, or Rome, or Warsaw. >a partnership. The prealert should describe information such as > >Opening No Trump Range >Major suit opening style >Strong/forcing openings >2/1 forcing to game? 2N? >Weird stuff > >Part of trying to define the prealert should be considering what types of >information a prealert should be assumed to provide. As an example, if I >prealert a five card major opening system, this has obvious consequences >for the style of my minor suit openings. Not obvious to me. Do you open 4333 hands 1D or 1C? What about 4432 or 1444? I believe you are assuming information that is not obvious to all. If I told you I was playing a Polish Club, would it be obvious to you what comsequences this would have on my minor suit openings? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 07:05:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:05:06 +1100 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 HAA18944 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:04:59 +1100 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 PAA04390 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:24:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030151011.0068d0c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:10:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:48 PM 10/30/98 -0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau posted a reply on this thread which I have unfortunately >deleted but the gist of it was that if a player's intention mattered >more than actual physical events then it does not matter in which order >the defender names one card and plays another. I disagree with this. >IMO Law 45 allows any player to name the card that he intends to play >and *at that moment* it becomes the played card. If he then exposes >some other card then that is dealt with either by Law 48 or 49. If a >defender first plays a card then that is the played card and the >subsequent naming of another card in his hand is then covered >specifically by Law 49. The two situations are therefore completely >different and intention does not matter at all in the second case. Absolutely correct... when "the defender names one card". But L1 tells us what the "names" of the cards are, and "I'll trump that" is a long way away from naming a card. Saying "I'll trump that" and then playing the C7 is equivalent to saying "I'll trump that with the seven of clubs" -- it doesn't matter whether he plays the card by physically playing it or by naming it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a player who says "I'll trump that with the seven of clubs" would be allowed to then substitute a trump (spade) for the C7 based on his statement of intent to trump the trick, nor should he in the (equivalent) case at hand. The gist of my reply was that it doesn't matter whether he makes his extraneous remark before or after he plays a card; whether he plays it by putting it on the table (as he did) or by naming it (which he didn't) doesn't matter. We either allow him to change the (only) card he played based on his statement that his intent was to trump the trick, or we don't. IMO, we don't. 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 Oct 31 07:12:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:12:45 +1100 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 HAA18996 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:12:40 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n20340) with SMTP id PAA15958 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:17:07 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) Message-ID: <1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561@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, 30 Oct 1998 15:17:07 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: bigfoot[SMTP:bigfoot@idt.net] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 2:08 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, >Can't we eliminate the term "standard" from this conversation? It just >creates trouble by imposing one bidding system or another as a memory >chore for someone. "Natural", it seems to me, would be a much more >useful term, that we can all understand, as long as we grant that bids >can be both natural AND conventional, like the Roman Jump overcalls >mentioned in some other posts. > >Irv I don't think that we can (or indeed should) remove "standard" from this discussion. To me, the very essence of an alert system is a mechanism to warn the opponents that a specific bid has an unexpected meaning. Furthermore, I do not believe that unexpected is synonymous with conventional. Here is a hypothetical. Suppose I were to pair you with a random bridge player drawn from anywhere in the world. You don't know where the player is from. You don't know how experienced the player is. You have no opportunity to discuss bidding system. Rather you are thrown directly into a match. Very first board you open 1N RHO passes Partner responds 2C Would you interpret this bid as asking for a 4 card major or showing a club suit? My guess is that nearly everyone would interpret this bid as asking for a four card major. In this case, the conventional response is clearly the "standard" usage and has been for decades. Any alert system that we define will require a mechanism for differentiating between alertable and non-alertable bids. One goal in designing an alert system is to make it as easy as possible to differentiate between these two sets of bids. However, to me, a more important design goal is to make sure that the alert system actually provides the opponents with useful information. I feel that a system based on alerting any and all conventional bids does not meet this second criteria. Consider auction continuations over a 1NT opening. Ignoring for the moment the specific sequence 1N - (P) - 3N If I went down to the local club and examine the response structures that players use following partner's one notrump opening, I'd guess that well over 90% of all bids the bids that would occur during the course of an auction would be conventional. This is a classic example where over-alerting prevents the alert system from transferring useful information. Consider for the moment a five card major, strong No Trump system of the sort that most tournament players in the States use (Bridge World Standard for example). If we weight bids based on their frequency, anyone want to hazard just what percentage of the time an alert would be required based on existing EBU regulations? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 07:23:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:23:14 +1100 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 HAA19121 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:23:07 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h93.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA02341; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:26:58 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <363AC9FA.3E1D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:27:38 -0800 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: Card played by defender? References: <363AC956.731@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Martin wrote: > > Eric Landau posted a reply on this thread which I have unfortunately > deleted but the gist of it was that if a player's intention mattered > more than actual physical events then it does not matter in which order > the defender names one card and plays another. I disagree with this. > IMO Law 45 allows any player to name the card that he intends to play > and *at that moment* it becomes the played card. If he then exposes > some other card then that is dealt with either by Law 48 or 49. If a > defender first plays a card then that is the played card and the > subsequent naming of another card in his hand is then covered > specifically by Law 49. The two situations are therefore completely > different and intention does not matter at all in the second case. First of all I'd like to congratulate Eric with nicely formulated and witty argument. Secondly - I really do not understand why L48 and l49 are involved in Eric's case - depending on the "play card - call card" order? Regards Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 07:38:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:38:10 +1100 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 HAA19260 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:38:04 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21393; 30 Oct 98 12:41 PST To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:10:11 PST." <3.0.1.32.19981030151011.0068d0c8@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:41:24 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9810301241.aa21393@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Absolutely correct... when "the defender names one card". But L1 tells us > what the "names" of the cards are, and "I'll trump that" is a long way away > from naming a card. I haven't been following this thread closely, so my apologies if my response makes points duplicated by someone else previously, or if they aren't actually pertinent to the discussion. But it seems there are several flaws in this line of reasoning: (1) L1 doesn't use the word "name" or any of its forms, and therefore arguably can't be used to provide a definition of when someone has "named" a card. (2) L45C4(a) doesn't require that the defender name the card. It says "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play." "Designates" isn't defined anywhere that I can find, so it's up in the air whether saying "I'll trump that" constitutes a desgination. (3) If this line of reasoning were to be allowed, then any time declarer tells dummy to play a "low trump", dummy would be required to do nothing until declarer gives a proper "name" (L45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card"). I'll admit that L46B's phrase about incontrovertible intentions may weaken my argument here . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 08:06:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:06:00 +1100 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 IAA19501 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:05:44 +1100 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 QAA06541 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:24:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:10:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <363A0C1F.C6C6314A@idt.net> References: <1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 10/30/98 -0800, bigfoot wrote: >Can't we eliminate the term "standard" from this conversation? It just >creates trouble by imposing one bidding system or another as a memory >chore for someone. "Natural", it seems to me, would be a much more >useful term, that we can all understand, as long as we grant that bids >can be both natural AND conventional, like the Roman Jump overcalls >mentioned in some other posts. I certainly agree with Irv that "standard" is a red herring for his purpose. But I've been "talking bridge" for 30 years, and outside of esoteric debates on the fine points of wording prospective regulations, I've never heard anyone try to distinguish between "artificial/natural" and "conventional/non-conventional". IMO, we should just pick one pair of terms and use them consistently (my own preference is for the former, only because "conventional" also carries the meaning "cutomary, conforming to established practice", but I don't really think any bridge player is going to be confused by this). Of course, there is a grey area, and not every meaning fits easily into one defintion or the other (whichever terms we use), but talking about "natural and conventional" (or "artificial but not conventional") merely creates additional grey areas we don't need or want. The real debate is whether to try to define away the grey area by regulation, or to try to define it away by arbitrary enumeration (which the ACBL used to do until they learned that the laws, as written, prohibit that), or whether to take an "I know it when I see it" approach -- arguing about what to call "it" gets us nowhere. FWIW, my personal "I know it when I see it" call is that Roman jump overcalls are artificial, or conventional, or whatever we call it, not natural, or non-conventional, or whatever we call it, and I respectfully disagree with Irv that that makes the term "natural" any less useful. What we should all agree on (and what the ACBL got terribly confused about in the bad old days) is that the distinction between natural/non-conventional and artificial/conventional has nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction between standard and non-standard. 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 Oct 31 08:25:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:25:14 +1100 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 IAA19608 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:25:04 +1100 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 QAA07286 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:44:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030163016.006f6e90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:30:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <19981030041834.1865.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:18 PM 10/29/98 PST, Michael wrote: >Or from a regional? Or from a club, who chooses to have Mid-chart >or Superchart, or even anything they like that doesn't violate >the Laws or ACBL's "specific disallows"? The GCC is only applicable by >default to tournaments that haven't specified anything else. > >Just venting (because one of my pet peeves is that "we provide the >mid-chart, so we can show it to Bulletin-writers who would like >a chance to play some different conventions. It's not our fault that >it's almost never used, and we see no reason to encourage it's use, >either." attitude of the ACBL). Michael, you should move to Washington (DC). Around here we use mid-chart for all regionals (except, I think, for the special Novice/Intermediate Program, but I'm not even sure about that), for all sectionals, and even for all of the games in our three major (games every day) clubs. It's what the players want. I've heard that it's different almost everywhere else in ACBL-land; I'm glad I live here. 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 Oct 31 08:45:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:45:14 +1100 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 IAA19678 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:45:08 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-32.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.128]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA05010; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <363A3406.A71A43A1@idt.net> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:47:50 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I must confess (mea culpa) that when I wrote my post, I was thinking about online bridge, and self alerts, where every alert can (and I think should) be accompanied by some sort of explanation. This is not the same situation that we have in f2f bridge, and I suspect that the rules should be different for the two versions of the game. In online bridge, I take issue with the general proposition that the alert procedure should " warn the opponents that a specific bid has an unexpected meaning." I think the proper use of the alert procedure (again, in online bridge), is to provide the opponents with a description of the partnership's agreements concerning the bid. The alert should specifically mean, "please read the accompanying message." An appropriate explanation removes (for the most part) the necessity that opponents inquire into the meaning of the bid, unless they require more information, and surely expedites the game. Thus, certain things could be routine in online bridge that would be impossible in F2F, like always announcing NT ranges. The situation is somewhat different in F2F bridge, mostly because of UI considerations, and I have much more sympathy with Richard's concerns in this milieu. I really do believe, however, that "Standard" will have to be defined by the SO. How could EBU players be expected to get along with a definition of standard that would be acceptable to ACBL players? I think this is simply not possible, and we shouldn't waste our time trying. The fact that there are a few exceptions shouldn't deter us from a general objective. It has to be true that 99% of the players play Stayman, and a very significant percentage play transfers after NT openings. Also, when you have played a number of bds against a particular pair, it may be appropriate to stop alerting certain bids simply because you know they have learned the meaning from previous auctions. This is a judgment call, based on a number of factors, like how well you know your opps, how you've been getting along at the table, your estimate of their skill level, etc. Obviously, when in doubt, the alert should be provided. The fewer exceptions we can define, the better off we'll be, IMO. The first two candidates should probably be Stayman and Blackwood. I'm not so sure about Transfers, since I myself play WK NT and two-way Stayman a significant part of the time. Negative doubles (if properly defined) would be another candidate. I'd be willing to listen to reason on this subject, but the list of exceptions to the alert rules should NOT be construed as adding up to a system that anyone might play. Since the term "Standard" is usually applied in the sense of a bidding system, this is part of my objection to the term. Irv Richard Willey wrote: > > ---------- > From: bigfoot[SMTP:bigfoot@idt.net] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 2:08 PM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, > > >Can't we eliminate the term "standard" from this conversation? It just > >creates trouble by imposing one bidding system or another as a memory > >chore for someone. "Natural", it seems to me, would be a much more > >useful term, that we can all understand, as long as we grant that bids > >can be both natural AND conventional, like the Roman Jump overcalls > >mentioned in some other posts. > > > >Irv > > I don't think that we can (or indeed should) remove "standard" from this > discussion. To me, the very essence of an alert system is a mechanism to > warn the opponents that a specific bid has an unexpected meaning. > Furthermore, I do not believe that unexpected is synonymous with > conventional. > > Here is a hypothetical. Suppose I were to pair you with a random bridge > player drawn from anywhere in the world. You don't know where the player > is from. You don't know how experienced the player is. You have no > opportunity to discuss bidding system. Rather you are thrown directly > into a match. > > Very first board you open 1N > RHO passes > Partner responds 2C > > Would you interpret this bid as asking for a 4 card major or showing a > club suit? > My guess is that nearly everyone would interpret this bid as asking for a > four card major. > > In this case, the conventional response is clearly the "standard" usage > and has been for decades. > > Any alert system that we define will require a mechanism for > differentiating between alertable and non-alertable bids. One goal in > designing an alert system is to make it as easy as possible to > differentiate between these two sets of bids. However, to me, a more > important design goal is to make sure that the alert system actually > provides the opponents with useful information. I feel that a system > based on alerting any and all conventional bids does not meet this second > criteria. > > Consider auction continuations over a 1NT opening. > Ignoring for the moment the specific sequence 1N - (P) - 3N > > If I went down to the local club and examine the response structures that > players use following partner's one notrump opening, I'd guess that well > over 90% of all bids the bids that would occur during the course of an > auction would be conventional. This is a classic example where > over-alerting prevents the alert system from transferring useful > information. > > Consider for the moment a five card major, strong No Trump system of the > sort that most tournament players in the States use (Bridge World > Standard for example). If we weight bids based on their frequency, > anyone want to hazard just what percentage of the time an alert would be > required based on existing EBU regulations? > > Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 08:58:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:58:21 +1100 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 IAA19752 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:58:15 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-32.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.128]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10445; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:02:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <363A3717.AEA66FDB@idt.net> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:00:55 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: What is the ruling References: <3.0.1.32.19981030163016.006f6e90@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric: I wish it were so in Los Angeles, but around here we only get Mid-Chart in events where the Flight A players are segregated from the hoi polloi. That means some swiss teams, some knockouts, and "Strati-flighted" events. In addition, the directors require that we advertise this fact well in advance of the tournament, or they won't allow it these events, either. In the KO events, there is a stipulation having to do with the average masterpoint holding of the bottom seeded team. If is goes below a certian number (1500?), Mid-Chart won't be permitted. Therefore you won't know what conventions you can play until just before the event actually begins! This strikes me as particularly objectionable. Can't you improve your weather, so that the Washington area would be more palatable for southwesterners? Irv Eric Landau wrote: > > At 08:18 PM 10/29/98 PST, Michael wrote: > > >Or from a regional? Or from a club, who chooses to have Mid-chart > >or Superchart, or even anything they like that doesn't violate > >the Laws or ACBL's "specific disallows"? The GCC is only applicable by > >default to tournaments that haven't specified anything else. > > > >Just venting (because one of my pet peeves is that "we provide the > >mid-chart, so we can show it to Bulletin-writers who would like > >a chance to play some different conventions. It's not our fault that > >it's almost never used, and we see no reason to encourage it's use, > >either." attitude of the ACBL). > > Michael, you should move to Washington (DC). Around here we use mid-chart > for all regionals (except, I think, for the special Novice/Intermediate > Program, but I'm not even sure about that), for all sectionals, and even > for all of the games in our three major (games every day) clubs. It's what > the players want. > > I've heard that it's different almost everywhere else in ACBL-land; I'm > glad I live here. > > 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 Oct 31 09:14:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:14:30 +1100 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 JAA19850 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:14:20 +1100 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 RAA08963 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:33:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030171933.006f9ca8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:19:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 10/30/98 -0400, Richard wrote: >I don't think that we can (or indeed should) remove "standard" from this >discussion. To me, the very essence of an alert system is a mechanism to >warn the opponents that a specific bid has an unexpected meaning. That's fine if I know my opponents well enough to know what they expect. > Furthermore, I do not believe that unexpected is synonymous with >conventional. It is not. If it were (not that I'm suggesting that), though, I'd have a much better idea what was "unexpected". >Here is a hypothetical. Suppose I were to pair you with a random bridge >player drawn from anywhere in the world. You don't know where the player >is from. You don't know how experienced the player is. You have no >opportunity to discuss bidding system. Rather you are thrown directly >into a match. > >Very first board you open 1N For starters, I would have no idea what that meant. Probably a balanced hand, although perhaps not (is my partner from Mexico?), but what would its "expected" strength be? >RHO passes >Partner responds 2C > >Would you interpret this bid as asking for a 4 card major or showing a >club suit? >My guess is that nearly everyone would interpret this bid as asking for a >four card major. Which would get me through this round, but what then? Would I subsequently interpret 2C as forcing Stayman, non-forcing Stayman, half of two-way Stayman, Sharples, or something else? Should I expect some values, or could partner have a worthless hand? It won't help to tell me that it's whatever my partner thinks is "standard". >In this case, the conventional response is clearly the "standard" usage >and has been for decades. Actually, in some of our local clubs the "standard" usage would be puppet, so if I thought that I was "expected" to bid a four-card major I'd be wrong. In a couple of years that could be the area-wide "standard" around here (to anyone who thinks that's silly, my answer is "negative doubles"). Would my unknown partner from an unknown region of an unknown country know that? >Any alert system that we define will require a mechanism for >differentiating between alertable and non-alertable bids. One goal in >designing an alert system is to make it as easy as possible to >differentiate between these two sets of bids. However, to me, a more >important design goal is to make sure that the alert system actually >provides the opponents with useful information. I feel that a system >based on alerting any and all conventional bids does not meet this second >criteria. If every opponent considered the same set of alerts "useful", we wouldn't be having this discussion. When we choose our design goals, what's preferable in theory must yield to what is feasible in implementation. >Consider auction continuations over a 1NT opening. >Ignoring for the moment the specific sequence 1N - (P) - 3N > >If I went down to the local club and examine the response structures that >players use following partner's one notrump opening, I'd guess that well >over 90% of all bids the bids that would occur during the course of an >auction would be conventional. This is a classic example where >over-alerting prevents the alert system from transferring useful >information. "Over-alerting" might prevent the alert system from transferring very much useful information at your local club, but might be required in order to transfer useful information at the club across town. Transferring information that's useful everywhere perforce requires transferring a lot more information than is useful in one specific club. >Consider for the moment a five card major, strong No Trump system of the >sort that most tournament players in the States use (Bridge World >Standard for example). If we weight bids based on their frequency, >anyone want to hazard just what percentage of the time an alert would be >required based on existing EBU regulations? I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that the EBU alert regulations be adopted in the States. We probably agree that alert regulations should be something between world-wide and different in every club. Having them vary by NCBO may not fit the ACBL very well, because the ACBL is the largest and most diverse NCBO in the world, but no regulation with general applicability will ever be perfect for the extreme edge-cases (I should know; when it comes to "standard" within the ACBL, my local area is clearly an extreme edge-case). Though we may not like it, alerts which are clearly useful in some places are downright silly in others. I started with no position on the issue of on-line alerts, but the discussion here has convinced me that the only reasonable choice for OLB (which is, by its nature, global) is either to try to make alerts carry as much information as they can, without worrying about whether the information is "useful" or not, or to try to develop an alternative information-passing scheme that doesn't involve alerts. 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 Oct 31 09:32:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:32:02 +1100 Received: from proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19936 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:31:53 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA00698 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:35:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981030173447.007c0d10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:34:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> References: <363A0C1F.C6C6314A@idt.net> <1998Oct30.095800.1189.284343@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:10 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >FWIW, my personal "I know it when I see it" call is that Roman jump >overcalls are artificial, or conventional, or whatever we call it, not >natural, or non-conventional, or whatever we call it, and I respectfully >disagree with Irv that that makes the term "natural" any less useful. I think Roman Jump Overcalls are artificial, conventional and natural. Can anyone take a stab at defining these terms. I think that's an important first step. As I've said elsewhere, an alert chart that refers to a system set which is considered standard is fine. But, that alert chart better define exactly what standard is or the chart will be useless to some. Better, IMO, to avoid the use of standard. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 09:49:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:49:31 +1100 Received: from proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20053 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:49:25 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n67.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.103]) by proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA01420 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:52:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981030175219.007c5250@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:52:19 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <363A3406.A71A43A1@idt.net> References: <1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 PM 10/30/98 -0800, Irwin J Kostal wrote: >The situation is somewhat different in F2F bridge, mostly because of UI >considerations, and I have much more sympathy with Richard's concerns in >this milieu. I really do believe, however, that "Standard" will have to >be defined by the SO. How could EBU players be expected to get along >with a definition of standard that would be acceptable to ACBL players? >I think this is simply not possible, and we shouldn't waste our time >trying. Consider defining the alert regulations for a WBF event where one can expect participants from all regions of the world. This should not be significantly different from online bridge, especially if screens are in use so that partner cannot see (or hear) alerts and explanations. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 10:02:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:38:32 +1100 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 JAA20005 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:38:04 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n90.san.rr.com [204.210.47.144]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09060 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:41:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199810302241.OAA09060@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:38:55 -0800 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 Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > Can't we eliminate the term "standard" from this conversation? It just > creates trouble by imposing one bidding system or another as a memory > chore for someone. "Natural", it seems to me, would be a much more > useful term, that we can all understand, as long as we grant that bids > can be both natural AND conventional, like the Roman Jump overcalls > mentioned in some other posts. > Bids can also be natural and "non-standard" by anyone's measure, although not conventional. Years ago the ACBL convention card had a notice inside that said players had to disclose all "non-standard" partnership agreements. My pleas to the ACBL that they document what they intended by "standard" went unheeded, and the notice disappeared after a while. A few years back I wrote a "Standard Bidding Specification" (SBS) that was intended for a game I call "True Bridge." (I would have preferred "Classic Bridge" but that term was usurped by the ACBL for a non-classic game). The SBS is a sort of bible that provides the meaning and strength of bids in all common situations, what is forcing or non-forcing, etc. It got to be pretty long, but was not a difficult job to write. True Bridge permits very few conventions: no transfers, no negative doubles, etc. It is the sort of game played by the majority here in San Diego. Surprised? Don't be. These players do not belong to the ACBL. They play in rubber bridge games, bridge marathons, bridge luncheons, etc., and in a surprisingly large number of unfranchised duplicate pair games (no convention cards!). One of the rules for True Bridge is that everyone has to follow the SBS, although minor deviations are permitted if disclosed to the opponents before play starts or via a *very* simple convention card. If you have an argument with partner about whether a bid is forcing or not, or whether a double is takeout or business, you can just look it up in the SBS. I had to make a lot of decisions when writing the SBS, aiming to document the general practices of good non-ACBL players, while excluding some of their bad ones (e.g., all jump rebids by responder forcing). It is a standard that most "non-scientists" can live with, as it stresses natural bidding. It needs some work, and I will get back to it some day if True Bridge ever gets implemented. Why am I writing all this? Just to point out that the term "standard" is useful in some contexts. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 10:21:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:21:34 +1100 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 KAA20110 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:21:27 +1100 Received: from modem59.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.187] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zZNuq-0001na-00; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:25:12 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:24:11 -0000 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. "not as a false echo of people in high places but as a sword of justice and a weight of wrath" - Michelangelo Buonarotti (translation) sonnet addressed to Pope Julius II ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal ===============\x/==\x/=============== ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:19:58 +1100 Received: from modem68.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zZPlf-0001KP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:23:52 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 2penatlycards Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:21:02 -0000 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. "As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it" = Teachings of Buddha ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > > > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Claude DADOUN wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not agree with David Stevenson > > > > > > > > > > >From the word order in both Laws (both in english and in french) I > > > deduce that it must have been the intention of the WBFLC to have L51 > > > serve as a expansion of L50, but that otherwise, everything in L50 > > > remains in force. > > > > > > It is not clear in the literal text that this is so though, and it is > > > probably one for Grattan's memory board. > > > But I presume that one word from Ton may be enough to tell us which is > > > the correct interpretation. > > In 1997 we had a meeting in Lille with Ton K. and Cl.Dadoun and I spoke > > about Law 51 . It was before the adoption of the new code and in view > > to contribute to the new text.Ton said that indeed it shall > > (will?,should?) be better to specify that prohibition remains in law 51. > > No change...then I conclude it was not an accident but with full > > knowledge of facts and I am obliged to think that the Draft Committee > > wishes that the prohibition does not remain in this case.Otherwise it > > was very easy to specify, no? ++++ The position is clarified by a careful reading of the English in Law 51B1(a) and (b). These begin respectively with "when" and "if" so that in neither case is the power to take the specified action given in this law. It is necessary to look elsewhere to obtain the power to make the requirement to which reference is made, and it becomes apparent that the action in question is provided for in Law 50. So we are forced inevitably to the conclusion that the player is acting under Law 50 and that Law 51 must exist for the purpose of making *extra* provisions applicable when there is more than one penalty card. I agree with David Stevenson and the English language of the law is not ambiguous although, as too often, it is rather obscure. To remove the obscurity is, I agree, something for me to add to my souvenirs. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 12:20:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:20:13 +1100 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 MAA20386 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:20:07 +1100 Received: from modem68.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zZPla-0001KP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:23:46 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:15:07 -0000 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. "As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it" = Teachings of Buddha ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: BLML and the WBFLC > Date: 27 October 1998 08:03 > > Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > Grattan wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > Every 7 years or so. It's not at all clear that the WBFLC > > has the authority to rule on cases between Laws revisions. > > According to Law 93, a "national authority" may be the > > final source of such authority in the case of an appeal. > Marvin: > Interpreting the Laws by issuing authoritative pronouncements, and > ruling on specific appeals, are two different activities. The > by-laws of the WBF state that the WBF LC interprets the Laws. That > has been debated and the principle generally accepted a short while > ago on BLML, perhaps you missed it. However, I don't believe the > WBF LC is interested in acting as the "final source" for ruling on > specific cases. ++++ I see no reason to suppose that in this respect we will not continue Kaplan's practice that the WBFLC would only deal with a specific case, as distinct from the principle of the law, if it were referred from a Zonal Authority (to which an NBO may have recourse); the current committee has not discussed the point but I am confident we will feel we have enough on our plate with the 'function and duty' (sic) laid on us by the WBF By-Laws. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 12:20:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:20:03 +1100 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 MAA20373 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:19:56 +1100 Received: from modem68.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zZPlc-0001KP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:23:48 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:59:37 -0000 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. "As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it" = Teachings of Buddha ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: Online Bridge Laws/Regulations > Date: 22 October 1998 22:00 > > In-Reply-To: > David Stevenson wrote: > > Regulations will also be necessary. Alerting, for example, - ==============\x/================== .. Players organising a special competition could > choose their SO for that purpose. > > Creeping AmericaniZation strikes again I suppose. +++ It is possible that international laws for on-line bridge will cover matters considered to need universal application. Alerts might be one of them. ~ Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 13:58:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:58:10 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f283.hotmail.com [207.82.251.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA20564 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:58:05 +1100 Received: (qmail 4741 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Oct 1998 03:01:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19981031030152.4740.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.181 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:01:50 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.181] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:01:50 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (sorry Richard - put me down as another that wants "reply-to" to default to BLML, I guess :-) >From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] >At 09:49 AM 10/27/98 PST, Michael wrote: > >>>Yes. However, in my messages on this topic, I said many >>>times "alert and immediately give first-level explanation". >>>Now, absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be >>>considered standard. Alert still gives a single piece of >>>information, but now that information is "non-standard; explanation >>>coming". It is no longer limited, because we are not limited to >>>just "Alert". > >>Absence of an alert will indicate that the bid should be considered >what? >>Standard, you say? What does that mean? > >Eric has asked a very short concise question. Sadly, I don't think >that it is possible to provide an answer anywhere near as succinctly. > I believe that alert regulations have the potential of being one of >the most complex areas for bridge legislation. In an on-line playing >environment the issue has the potential of being even more complex. > I do agree, and I'm sorry for seeming to make things "oversimplified". It's another word, like "natural", "convention", that are very difficult to pin down - though in this case, it is because it is, as Eric and others have pointed out, a moving target. However, another word that is difficult to pin down is "bridge knowledge". But we seem to allow bandying that around. L40B says that you must disclose anything that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to understand. As far as I am concerned, that's anything that couldn't be worked out using only "bridge knowledge". Yes, that means that I will give different explanations in my mentor/novice game, in my regular games, in games against Swedish players, and so on. But I already do this, and consider it only my responsibility. I am worried that we are looking at this argument from "what do we have to do" and "how can we subvert the spirit of the regulations". I think what Eric is trying to do is laudable (and I am still willing to be convinced - thx for pointing out that "standard" means such different things in different locales; I had forgotten that) - but it shows evidence of considering bridge players to be unreasonable and unreasoning by default. I also think that telling people up front that "we expect you to be reasonable" - and enforcing it - will remove more problems then any iron-clad, "perfect" alert system world-wide. my belief for that is the many different ways the ACBL has been trying to "lawyer-proof" their CC and Alert regulations. I believe that bids come in three basic forms: obviously understandable without extra information, obviously not understandable absent extra information (and yes, that includes balanced 1NT openers), and a set that are in the middle. I am just suggesting that, provided UI isn't a problem, move those that are in the middle into the "explain" category. Oh, and I am still firmly looking at online bridge. A lot of my arguments go poof if there's a partner in hearing range of my explanations - and I am not going to apologize for that. >One concept that I believe has a great deal of merit is to attempt to use >some type of "pre-alert" of methods to decrease the number of bids that >must be alerted during the course of an auction. > >For example, if I am using a five card major based system in the UK, >currently I need to alert all of my 1C opening because 1C could >potentially be opened on a 3 card suit. I think that it would be much >more valuable to attempt to convey this type of information by means of a >pre-alert of methods perhaps supplemented with a written explanation >during the course of the auction and reserve the alert for a truly >unusual meaning such as 1C = Forcing, or 1C = FERT. > What if I pre-alert that I'm playing a Strong Club system? Why should I then have to alert 1C = Forcing? What if I pre-alert that I'm playing a forcing pass system, with 1C as my fert? Do I then need to alert my 1C openers? Unfortunately, this is as slippery as "standard" is (unfortunately, because I think it's a good idea). Changing topics... For FtF bridge, I believe strongly that the CC should be set up so that opening calls P - 2NT, and 3NT are described in moderate detail, with space for conventional responses (and other stuff, as we are used to). Then all opening bids described on the card are non-alertable. Actually, I believe strongly that the ACBL Alert chart should be changed to fit the CC - if it's describable completely by checking a box or completely using only 0-9 and CHDS/NT/X/XX/HCP/points, then it isn't alertable. Of course, that requires "two complete, identical CCs at the table at all times", but that's another problem... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 31 23:12:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 23:12:07 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21624 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 23:12:00 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:14:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-23.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.23] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:14:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <363B8C5C.41FF@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:17:00 -0800 From: Claude DADOUN Reply-To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr Organization: FFB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 [fr] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2penatlycards References: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> <36394C03.1301@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you for the comments on L51. I am agree now and like John R. Mayne I'd add the word 'also' to the end of the parenthetical phrase of L50D2a (...see also Law 51). Amicalement,