From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 03:46:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 03:46:29 +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 DAA24497 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 03:46:20 +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 LAA06475 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA21516 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:50:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:50:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199810311650.LAA21516@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is > sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? Perhaps. Remember the part in L75C (?) about "partnership experience?" If there is partnership experience to suggest that partner sometimes or often forgets, then the opponents must be told. Common examples would indeed be pickup partnerships ("I filled out the card and he just glanced at it.") or agreements that don't come up very often ("We agreed on that a year ago, but it hasn't come up since then, and I hope he remembers."). This particular case doesn't sound like an example of one of the above. The auction ought to be a pretty common one, and this pair seems to have firm agreements. Still, if they are playing a complex system, isn't it odd that they have no notes? Even if there wasn't MI this time, _next_ time the auction comes up, the explanation will most likely have to be different. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 04:18:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:18:59 +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 EAA24579 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:18:53 +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 MAA20834 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:38:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981031122411.0069c8b4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:24:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981030173447.007c0d10@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> <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 05:34 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Tim wrote: >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. My first stab would be something like: "Artificial: A bid is artificial if it: (a) Conveys a message unrelated to the named suit, or (b) Shows shortness, or some specific holding, in the bid suit, or (c) Carries a direct (non-inferential) message about a holding in another suit or suits (which may or may not be specified). A pass is artificial if it carries any meaning other than a willingness to play in the last-named contract. A double (or redouble) is artificial if it carries any meaning other than a willingness to play in the last-named contract doubled (or redoubled). Conventional: See Artificial. Natural: Not artificial." I could come up with any number of similar wordings that, IMO, reflect the way these terms are normally used in the bridge community. But there's no way I can come remotely close to normal usage with any set of definitions that would encompass the notion of a bid being simultaneously artificial, conventional and natural. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 04:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:52:14 +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 EAA24663 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 04:52:07 +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 NAA21107 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:11:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981031125727.0069c8b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:57:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Card played by defender? In-Reply-To: <9810301537.aa01953@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L45C4(a): "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." This thread has come down to the fundamental question of what it means to "name or otherwise designate" a card. I suggest that it means the following: "Indicate (a card) in such a way as to make its identity known to the other players at the table." Note that one can unambiguously state one's intention to play a particular card without "designating" it, since its identity remains unknown while it's still concealed from the other players (I can say "I'm going to play the highest heart in my hand"). Note also (same example) that a statement which would not designate a card in a closed hand can easily, by this definition, be sufficient to designate a card in dummy. While this definition is straightforward and conforms to normal English usage, I admit that it may confound the intention of L45C4(a), insofar as it would mean that the player who made the above statement would be free to play some card other than his highest heart. Personally, I'd just as soon see "name or otherwise designate" changed (in 2007) to read "name, or, in the case of a card in the dummy, otherwise designate". That would make any verbal designation by a defender (or declarer about to play from hand) simply an "extraneous remark" subject to the usual. In my earlier remarks I suggested that "trumps" might not unambiguously designate the trump suit, but now I'm not at all sure -- I hadn't considered the effect of L41D. 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 Sun Nov 1 05:36:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 05:36:39 +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 FAA24766 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 05:36:33 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22665 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:40:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:40:25 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <199810311650.LAA21516@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Jan Kamras > > Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is > > sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? > > Perhaps. Remember the part in L75C (?) about "partnership > experience?" If there is partnership experience to suggest that > partner sometimes or often forgets, then the opponents must be told. > Common examples would indeed be pickup partnerships ("I filled out the > card and he just glanced at it.") or agreements that don't come up very > often ("We agreed on that a year ago, but it hasn't come up since > then, and I hope he remembers."). > > This particular case doesn't sound like an example of one of the > above. The auction ought to be a pretty common one, and this pair > seems to have firm agreements. Still, if they are playing a complex > system, isn't it odd that they have no notes? > Not at all. Even assuming they have notes, why on earth would they cart them around with them to tournaments? Having them in the playing area is a pain, especially if the players are E-W. I play what many call a complex system with my most regular partner. (That means it's different, and we have discussed many sequences.) We play together often enough that we don't need to review the basic system regularly, and we are both too lazy to spend much time reviewing the stuff that comes up once in three years. I keep telling myself I have to edit the system notes from the _previous_ system to match what we really play, but we've managed for years so far. If there is a dispute, I believe him! I'm sure lots of other partnerships do the same, or at least don't bother to carry notes with them. I've been before an appeals committee on system matters exactly once. The committee believed us. I would expect a committee at least to give serious consideration to a straight- forward statement as to what our agreements were and whether we claimed to have forgotten them. -- 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 Sun Nov 1 06:22:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:22:09 +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 GAA24878 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 06:22:03 +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 NAA03949 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:39:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981031142454.007b62b0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:24:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981031122411.0069c8b4@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981030173447.007c0d10@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> <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 12:24 PM 10/31/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >I could come up with any number of similar wordings that, IMO, reflect the >way these terms are normally used in the bridge community. But there's no >way I can come remotely close to normal usage with any set of definitions >that would encompass the notion of a bid being simultaneously artificial, >conventional and natural. A definition I posted earlier: NATURAL BIDS. Bids which reflect the character of the hand and suggest a final denomination for the partnership. Under this definition, two suited calls would be natural when the suit named is one of the suits shown. You may not agree with the definition, but it is not unreasonable and certainly comes "remotely close" to normal usage. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 07:48:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 07:48:04 +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 HAA25123 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 07:47:58 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 31 Oct 1998 21:50:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.50] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 31 Oct 1998 21:50:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 22:52:54 -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: 1/2TABLE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1/2 TABLE In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute for the table with a phantom pair? 1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) 2) 60%+ 3) other (like 50%) I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. in France computer's programs give average score. I know it is different for some countries. I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled to be played. In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that pair. 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score in the session) 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after some rounds or after one session. -cancel the scores ? -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. Thank you From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 09:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:55:49 +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 JAA25377 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:55:43 +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 OAA01616; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:58:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199810312258.OAA01616@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:56:18 -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 Claude DADOUN wrote: > > 1/2 TABLE > > In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute > for the table with a phantom pair? > 1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) > 2) 60%+ > 3) other (like 50%) > > I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions > pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. > and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. > > in France computer's programs give average score. > I know it is different for some countries. > I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) > > Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled > to be played. > In our case, we can consider that the board is not scheduled for that > pair. > > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score > in the session) > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? > > I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. > > Thank you Over here in ACBL-land the missing results are not scored at all, so the answer is 1). The ACBL guide for TDs says to "factor" up the scores of those who play fewer boards. For instance, if some have played 26, some 24, those who have played 24 have their scores multiplied by 26/24. The factoring in this situation is always up, never down, even if it means factoring many more scores than would be necessary for factoring down. It makes no difference in the rankings, but players don't like to see their scores reduced for whatever reason. The ACBLScore program does the factoring automatically. Factoring is obviously more fair than assigning an arbitrary score, but is still not quite fair to those who have played the greater number of boards. It's harder to score, say, 65%, playing 27 boards than when playing 24 boards. Perhaps Herman De Wael will have something to say about this. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 10:33:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:33:03 +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 KAA25454 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:32:56 +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 SAA23966 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 18:50:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981031183709.006fd420@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 18:37:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981031142454.007b62b0@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19981031122411.0069c8b4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.5.32.19981030173447.007c0d10@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> <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 02:24 PM 10/31/98 -0500, Tim wrote: >At 12:24 PM 10/31/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>I could come up with any number of similar wordings that, IMO, reflect the >>way these terms are normally used in the bridge community. But there's no >>way I can come remotely close to normal usage with any set of definitions >>that would encompass the notion of a bid being simultaneously artificial, >>conventional and natural. > >A definition I posted earlier: > >NATURAL BIDS. Bids which reflect the character of the hand and suggest a >final denomination for the partnership. > >Under this definition, two suited calls would be natural when the suit >named is one of the suits shown. You may not agree with the definition, >but it is not unreasonable and certainly comes "remotely close" to normal >usage. Perhaps I was being parochial in my initial statement; perhaps bridge players in areas with which I'm unfamiliar use "natural" in this sense. But not around here. This may even be an area on which it would be enlightening to poll the list. Here's as pure a "talking case" as I can think of, a common convention in this area: Opening 2H: Exactly four spades, exactly five hearts, 11-15 HCP. (Non-forcing.) Natural bid or not? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 10:47:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:47:11 +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 KAA25481 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:47:04 +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 TAA24075 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:06:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981031185226.006fa82c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 18:52:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE In-Reply-To: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:52 PM 10/31/98 -0800, ffb wrote: >1/2 TABLE > >In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute >for the table with a phantom pair? >1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) >2) 60%+ >3) other (like 50%) [ACBL:] (1). Always. >Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled >to be played. >In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that >pair. Correct. A board is not "scheduled to be played" by just one pair. > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score > in the session) > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? A pair that leaves is very very different from a phantom pair, and it would seem very strange to consider trying to cover both with the same set of rules. Practice may not be as consistent as in the case of a phantom, but usually we'd use 60% protected (meaning that a scheduled opponent receives the greater of 60% or their actual percentage for the session) only for the remainder of an incomplete session (i.e. if they walked out in mid-session). For a full session it wouldn't matter that you had expected them to be scheduled, they are not scheduled as of the session start, they are simply not there, like the phantom in the half-table game. The one thing we would not do is cancel scores of whatever boards they had already played. 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 Sun Nov 1 10:50:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:50:12 +1100 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 KAA25503 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:50:06 +1100 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 SAA00114 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 18:53:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 18:53:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199810312353.SAA18187@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199810312258.OAA01616@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Over here in ACBL-land the missing results are not scored at all, > so the answer is 1). The ACBL guide for TDs says to "factor" up the > scores of those who play fewer boards. For instance, if some have > played 26, some 24, those who have played 24 have their scores > multiplied by 26/24. The factoring in this situation is always up, > never down, even if it means factoring many more scores than would > be necessary for factoring down. It makes no difference in the > rankings, but players don't like to see their scores reduced for > whatever reason. It used to make a difference in the rankings, because scored differing by less than half a matchpoint were considered tied. If the top two scores of 195.5 and 195 were factored down to 180.46 and 180.00, that would create an unjustified tie. In theory, factoring down could still cause this problem. If there are fouled boards and averages which cause two scored to differ by .01, they might factor down to the same score. If two pairs score 195.07 and 195.06, both would factor down to 180.06, creating a tie. -- 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 Nov 1 11:45:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:45:11 +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 LAA25607 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:45:05 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcjte.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.174]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA08359 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981031194545.006bc4c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:45:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <199810311650.LAA21516@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 10/31/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Jan Kamras >> Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is >> sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? > >Perhaps. Remember the part in L75C (?) about "partnership >experience?" If there is partnership experience to suggest that >partner sometimes or often forgets, then the opponents must be told. >Common examples would indeed be pickup partnerships ("I filled out the >card and he just glanced at it.") or agreements that don't come up very >often ("We agreed on that a year ago, but it hasn't come up since >then, and I hope he remembers."). > >This particular case doesn't sound like an example of one of the >above. The auction ought to be a pretty common one, and this pair >seems to have firm agreements. Still, if they are playing a complex >system, isn't it odd that they have no notes? > No, it is not. The vast majority of partnerships, including many that would call themselves serious, do not employ system notes, and the lack of such should not be considered dispositive or even suggestive. >Even if there wasn't MI this time, _next_ time the auction comes up, the >explanation will most likely have to be different. > Pishtosh! Every time I alert and explain our partnership agreements, I am obliged to recount a dossier of the times partner did or did not remember it? Besides gratuitously insulting my partner in front of the opponents and wasting their time, it is simply not required to do this. One instance of a forgotten agreement does not alter the fact that it _is_ our agreement, and in no way imposes any obligation to inform future opponents of this occurence. Of course, if partner habitually forgets a particular agreement, then such a pattern might well impose a requirement for informing the opponents of this tendency. But I should think that by the time partner's forgetfulness has been so frequently demonstrated, I would have gotten either a new partner or a new agreement. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 11:44:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:44:57 +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 LAA25600 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:44:51 +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 TAA23809; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:01:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981031194709.007b88e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:47:09 -0500 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981031183709.006fd420@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981031142454.007b62b0@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981031122411.0069c8b4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.5.32.19981030173447.007c0d10@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981030161057.006f48c0@pop.cais.com> <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 06:37 PM 10/31/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Opening 2H: Exactly four spades, exactly five hearts, 11-15 HCP. >(Non-forcing.) > >Natural bid or not? Yes. In fact, I think I mentioned just this convention in my original post. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 1 16:17:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:17:08 +1100 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 QAA26182 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:17:01 +1100 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 IAA13378 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:18:24 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199811010518.IAA13378@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:18:02 +0300 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 Claude DADOUN wrote: > > In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute > for the table with a phantom pair? > 1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) > 2) 60%+ > 3) other (like 50%) > > I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions > pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. > and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. > > in France computer's programs give average score. > I know it is different for some countries. > I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) > > Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled > to be played. > In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that > pair. > > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score > in the session) > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? > > I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. In Russia we give average in session if pair meet with phantom pair. If pair left during the session after halfway we give 60% to their opponents. > Thank you Sergei Litvak RBL Chief TD. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 07:44:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:44:21 +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 HAA00179 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:44:15 +1100 Received: from deroover (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA21441 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:48:08 +0100 (CET) From: "Nico De Roover" To: "BLML" Subject: Cats, dogs and Herman Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:47:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01be05d8$c5fe3a40$0c0d07c2@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 I'm sorry but I don't have any cats or dogs. And a message fot Anne : "yes I know Herman" From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 08:51:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:51:43 +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 IAA00369 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:51:35 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA22293 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:54:20 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:54:20 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE In-Reply-To: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Claude DADOUN wrote: > 1/2 TABLE > > In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute > for the table with a phantom pair? Here in Holland, one calculates the percentage scores based on the number of boards that a pair actually played. I don't think that I've ever seen anything else. > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? If a pair leaves after a session, there is no real problem. One simply adds up the percentage scores for the sessions, regardless whether a pair played N or N-1 rounds in that particular session. Note that this answer would not be sufficient in the Dutch TD course. There you have to assign weights to the score: score in event = sum (number_of_boards_per session x score in that session) / number of boards in all sessions in order to pass the exam, but I don't think that ever happens in practice. (Multi session events are quite popular for club events, you play 5..7 sessions, with the winner the pair with the highest percentage scores over all sessions). I don't think that there are any rules regarding pairs leaving during a sessions. In a single session event, I'd cancel the scores for that pair if they leave early in the event. If they leave near the end for some good reason, I'd score it as incomplete movement with several pairs having sitouts in the last round. 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 Mon Nov 2 09:21:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:21:46 +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 JAA00461 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:21:40 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-141.access.net.il [192.116.198.141]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA25521; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:24:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <363CDF66.3577144C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:23:34 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico De Roover CC: BLML Subject: Re: Cats, dogs and Herman References: <01be05d8$c5fe3a40$0c0d07c2@deroover> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Welcome to the club Nico , but you missing some pleasures of our life. But i must agree - it is very ambivalent knowing Herman - maybe you very happy or miserable !!!!! Dany P.S. Dear friend Herman - I hope you feel ......the non-sense of my humor - and feel better now Nico De Roover wrote: > > I'm sorry but I don't have any cats or dogs. > > And a message fot Anne : "yes I know Herman" From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 10:46:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:46:58 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA00669 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:46:52 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h22.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA20476; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:49:48 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <363D9C83.7A77@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 03:50:27 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: BLML Subject: Re: Cats, dogs and Herman References: <01be05d8$c5fe3a40$0c0d07c2@deroover> <363CDF66.3577144C@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) But Dany - every joke has a bit of joke:) Best wishes Vitold Dany Haimovici wrote: > > hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm > Welcome to the club Nico , but you missing some pleasures > of our life. > > But i must agree - it is very ambivalent knowing Herman - > maybe you very happy or miserable !!!!! > > Dany > > P.S. Dear friend Herman - I hope you feel ......the non-sense > of my humor - and feel better now > > Nico De Roover wrote: > > > > I'm sorry but I don't have any cats or dogs. > > > > And a message fot Anne : "yes I know Herman" From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 12:09:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:09:08 +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 MAA00833 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:09:02 +1100 Received: from modem90.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.218] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0za8YB-00032j-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:12:56 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 12:52:38 -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=Default 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: Dany Haimovici > Subject: Re: Aquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Date: 28 October 1998 16:31 > > 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 < > 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). ++++ Except as allowed under 69B ++++ > > 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. > ++++ In CB's case the question arises of what would be 'normal play'; I agree that it requires a Director's judgement, which it seems will depend on his view whether claimer thought he had nine top tricks. David Burn is doubtlessly pleased with the mention in this law of the Director's judgment. I would think this law might be better if it ruled out, regardless of normality, any finesse (which would not become evident from the fall of the cards) unless mentioned in the statement of claim. ++++ > Reg Busch wrote: > > ======================\x/===================== > > > > > 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 AC could consider asking the Chief TD to join them in order to discover from him his reasons for his ruling. They might or might not then recommend a change of ruling, and if the CTD agreed to change it, simultaneously making a ruling on the bridge, the AC could then turn to the bridge aspects. CB's narrative is not wholly clear that what happened was not something like this. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 12:09:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:09:11 +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 MAA00834 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:09:04 +1100 Received: from modem90.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.218] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0za8YD-00032j-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:12:57 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: What is the ruling Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:43:36 -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. "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: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is the ruling > Date: 01 November 1998 00:45 > > At 11:50 AM 10/31/98 -0500, Steve wrote: > >> From: Jan Kamras and Michael Dennis > >> Is pard supposed to explain that "3NT shows 2-3-4-4 but my pard is > >> sometimes aware, and sometimes not, of our agreements"?? > > ============\x/=============\x/=============== > Michael Dennis wrote: > Of course, if partner habitually forgets a particular agreement, then such > a pattern might well impose a requirement for informing the opponents of > this tendency. But I should think that by the time partner's forgetfulness > has been so frequently demonstrated, I would have gotten either a new > partner or a new agreement. > ++++ Fine, but not every partnership changes either its agreements or its composition when one of the pair tends to forget bits of their agreements regularly. So when the cap fits it should be worn. I would also think that if the forgetfulness occurs twice or more within a short space that is reason enough to protect opponents' interests. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 14:25:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:25:02 +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 OAA01147 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:24:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaAfh-0007CF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:28:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <1998Oct30.145800.1189.284561@azure-tech.com> <363A3406.A71A43A1@idt.net> <3.0.5.32.19981030175219.007c5250@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981030175219.007c5250@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >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. Now this is wrong. I am afraid that BLML has a habit of considering the more experienced players too much. For example, discussions over ACBL alerting never mention that it is likely to drive poorer players out of the game, while EBU alerting is not. That doesn't make EBU alerting better, but it is a factor to be considered. When you compare WBF bridge with OLB you are talking about different levels of player. There is a significant difference between the two forms of bridge. In general, I believe that alert what you think should be alerted works at World level: it does not work with the average player because too many of them tend to be too self-opionated for it to work. -- 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 Mon Nov 2 23:37:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:46 +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 XAA02255 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:39 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-164.uunet.be [194.7.14.164]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00332 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:41:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <363DA39A.E5213945@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:20:42 +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: Ghestem again Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Two suiters always pose problems, but this one I had not yet seen before. The bidding starts 1He-(2He). This is explained as Ghestem. Now if you know Ghestem, this is supposed to be a two-suiter Spades & Clubs. Only partner explained it as Diamonds and Clubs. Guess what the player had ? correct : Spades and Diamonds. Can you believe that we changed to 6 clubs making 7, only narrowly deciding not to award 7 ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 23:37:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:48 +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 XAA02254 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:37 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-164.uunet.be [194.7.14.164]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00307 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:41:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <363DA311.F906ED45@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:18:25 +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: the lethal lead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If this is the lay-out : Q9 J97432 52 Q52 AT64 KJ83 5 AQ AKQT83 J964 KJ A93 752 KT86 7 T8764 What would be the lethal lead from South against the contract of seven diamonds ? You will not find it : the seven of diamonds. The first trick goes : 7-3-2-4 "oops" "sorry" "TD, can I change this ?" Sadly he couldn't, as the indication "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" applies only to a play from dummy. Mind you, declarer did the spade suit right, so he would have made 7, for a solid top. Now it was a solid bottom. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 2 23:37:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:30 +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 XAA02245 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:37:24 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-164.uunet.be [194.7.14.164]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00299 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:41:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <363DA021.138952CF@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:05:53 +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: 1/2TABLE References: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN wrote: > > 1/2 TABLE > > In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute > for the table with a phantom pair? > 1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) > 2) 60%+ > 3) other (like 50%) > > I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions > pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. > and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. > > in France computer's programs give average score. > I know it is different for some countries. > I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) > > Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled > to be played. > In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that > pair. > > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score > in the session) > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? > > I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. > Belgium has no regulations on this, but I have "my regulation" which applies whenever I have any influence. The normal "bye" is calculated as 1) = no score, simple average. The case of a pair leaving early (or coming late) I do the same. The opponents have "no score". I find giving more than 2 or 3 AV+ far more disturbing than having a pair not play some opponent. In Brigitte (my calculation program) a "bye" is always calculated as "no score". A pair leaving early or coming late can be dealt with in both ways. There is a way to simply "delete" the line, making it exactly as a "bye". I would suggest that "my regulations" be the basis of standard regulations written down somewhere. > Thank you De rien ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 00:46:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:46:43 +1100 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 AAA04628 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:46:37 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811021346.AAA04628@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:50:18 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA104024616; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:50:16 +0100 Subject: Re: Ghestem again To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:50:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <363DA39A.E5213945@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Nov 02, 1998 01:20:42 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 Herman De Wael: > >Two suiters always pose problems, but this one I had not yet seen >before. > >The bidding starts 1He-(2He). > >This is explained as Ghestem. > >Now if you know Ghestem, this is supposed to be a two-suiter Spades & >Clubs. > >Only partner explained it as Diamonds and Clubs. > >Guess what the player had ? correct : Spades and Diamonds. Disgusting. >Can you believe that we changed to 6 clubs making 7, only narrowly >deciding not to award 7 ? I would have felt a very strong temptation to change the score to 7 making, maybe even doubled. And I would check for possibilities to disallow that particular pair the use of any two-suiter convention, especially Ghesthem. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 01:16:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:16:47 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com ([207.227.70.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04701 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:16:38 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zaKqT-001b6eC; Mon, 2 Nov 98 09:20 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 09:20:29 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE In-Reply-To: <363DA021.138952CF@village.uunet.be> References: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_781794==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_781794==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:05 PM 11/2/98 , Herman De Wael wrote: >Claude DADOUN wrote: >> >> 1/2 TABLE >> >> In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute >> for the table with a phantom pair? >> 1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) >> 2) 60%+ >> 3) other (like 50%) >> >> I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions >> pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. >> and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. >> >> in France computer's programs give average score. >> I know it is different for some countries. >> I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) >> >> Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled >> to be played. >> In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that >> pair. >> >> 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree >> less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score >> in the session) >> >> 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after >> some rounds or after one session. >> -cancel the scores ? >> -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? >> >> I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. >> > >Belgium has no regulations on this, but I have "my regulation" which >applies whenever I have any influence. > >The normal "bye" is calculated as 1) = no score, simple average. > >The case of a pair leaving early (or coming late) I do the same. The >opponents have "no score". I find giving more than 2 or 3 AV+ far more >disturbing than having a pair not play some opponent. > >In Brigitte (my calculation program) a "bye" is always calculated as "no >score". A pair leaving early or coming late can be dealt with in both >ways. There is a way to simply "delete" the line, making it exactly as >a "bye". > >I would suggest that "my regulations" be the basis of standard >regulations written down somewhere. > ACBL regulations assign "no score" to the pair sitting out at the 1/2 table. Then all scores for pairs that played fewer than the maximum number of boards are "factored up". The net result is the same as assigning these pairs their average score for the session on these boards. John S. Nichols --=====================_781794==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:05 PM 11/2/98 , Herman De Wael wrote:
>Claude DADOUN wrote:
>>
>> 1/2 TABLE
>>
>> In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute
>> for the table with a phantom pair?
>> 1)  Average score of the pair in the session (no score)
>> 2)  60%+
>> 3)  other (like 50%)
>>
>> I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions
>> pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships.
>> and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem.
>>
>> in  France computer's programs give average score.
>> I know it is different for some countries.
>> I saw even a TD scoring 55%  (why not 53% 274..!!!)
>>
>> Law 88  awards 60+  when a concurent did not play a board scheduled
>> to be played.
>> In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that
>> pair.
>>
>>  2)  60+  is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree
>>      less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score
>>      in the session)
>>
>>  1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after
>>     some rounds or after one session.
>>     -cancel the scores ?
>>     -continue with 60+  or average for the rest of  the tournament?
>>
>> I would like do know if your country has regulations for it.
>>
>
>Belgium has no regulations on this, but I have "my regulation" which
>applies whenever I have any influence.
>
>The normal "bye" is calculated as 1) = no score, simple average.
>
>The case of a pair leaving early (or coming late) I do the same.  The
>opponents have "no score".  I find giving more than 2 or 3 AV+ far more
>disturbing than having a pair not play some opponent.
>
>In Brigitte (my calculation program) a "bye" is always calculated as "no
>score".  A pair leaving early or coming late can be dealt with in both
>ways.  There is a way to simply "delete" the line, making it exactly as
>a "bye".
>
>I would suggest that "my regulations" be the basis of standard
>regulations written down somewhere.
>

ACBL regulations assign "no score" to the pair sitting out at the 1/2 table.  Then all scores for pairs that played fewer than the maximum number of boards are "factored up".  The net result is the same as assigning these pairs their average score for the session on these boards.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_781794==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 01:49:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:49:43 +1100 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 BAA04807 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:49:33 +1100 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 PAA22131; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:47:38 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28714; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:46:50 GMT Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id OAA28833; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:44:05 GMT X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 02 Nov 98 12:47:25 +0000 X400-Received: by mta fel01x4 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 02 Nov 98 12:34:25 +0000 X400-Received: by mta POL0103 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 02 Nov 98 13:48:50 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 02 Nov 98 13:48:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 98 13:48:00 +0100 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G800210F4A6500000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: ffb.dadoun.@wanadoo.fr , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <18382.805691642@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: ffb.dadoun.@wanadoo.fr To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> Importance: normal Subject: RE:1/2TABLE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN: >1/2 TABLE > >In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute >for the table with a phantom pair? >1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) >2) 60%+ >3) other (like 50%) > In Poland. - 50% if each pair "plays" against this phantom one - 60%+ otherwise >I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions... By Law 88 it is exacltly the case "the pair is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own" > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score > in the session) But see above > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? In Poland: - cancel the scores if leaving pair played less than 50% of all boards scheduled for this session and then as at the begining. - continue with 60%+ otherwise 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 Nov 3 02:16:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:16:01 +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 CAA05037 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:15:54 +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 KAA22917 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:18:31 -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-1998Nov02.100000.1189.285352; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:19:07 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) Message-ID: <1998Nov02.100000.1189.285352@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, 02 Nov 1998 10:19:07 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 1998 12:34 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, There seems to be a fair amount of discussion over my use of the word "standard" when discussing possible systems for regulating alerts. A number of individuals have argued against basing any type of regulation on a definition of standard, generally arguing on practical grounds that it is impossible to define what constitutes standard, particularly in an international venue such as online bridge or a world-wide championship. During this entire discussion some people seem to have been treating the concept of an "alert" and an "explanation" of a bid as being synonymous. While on a practical basis, there may be a correlation between alerts and explanations, these two methods of providing information to the opponents are very different in nature and should be optimized for different tasks. An alert is a wake-up call. Its very presence is an indication that its worth paying attention to the bid in question but the alert itself does not provide any context. In contrast, an explanation is a brief description of the specific meaning of that bid. Frankly, I am not sure of the precise correspondence of the set of alertable and announcable bids in an online playing environment. I suspect that the set of all bids that should be alerted is a subset of the bids that should be announced, but I'm not 100% sure. However, I continue to hold to my original position that the purpose of an alert should be an indication that a bid has a non-standard meaning. I consider the fact that it might not be possible to ascribe a "standard" meaning to a specific bid to be something of a red-herring. Consider the following case. The opponents are playing Acol. I can think of any number of popular treatments that are used in different parts of the world when making a jump shift over RHO's 1C opening. Weak Jump Shift Intermediate Jump Shift Roman Jump Shift .. I don't think that it is necessarily possible to define a "standard" meaning for a jump to 2S. Hence, I don't think that the auction (1C) - 2S should require an alert. I do, however, believe that the 2S jump should be accompanied by an explanation describing the specific meaning of the 2S jump. I think that the crux of this entire matter is that there are (at least) two different fundamental design goals for any alert structure and these goals are in opposition to one another. The first goal is to attempt to maximize the amount of information provided by an actual alert. The second goal is to minimize the complexity of remembering the specifics of the alert system. Depending on the specific weight that an individual places on each of these determining factors, their view of an "optimal" alert system will look very different. My own perspective is undoubtedly biased by my conviction that a technical solution is possible that is capable of automating most of the routine chores accompanying any alert system. Hence, I am trying to describe an alert structure that is heavily biased towards maximizing the amount of information provided by the presence (or absence) of an alert. With regards to David Stevenson's point about the complexity of ACBL alert regulations and the potential that these regulations have for deterring players from participating in organized bridge. The arguments that I am making are predicated completely on the technical nature of the online line playing environment. I do not believe that the same alert system is necessarily appropriate for a game conducted under different playing conditions. New Thread (In the case of the ACBL, I don't think that players necessarily object to the complexity of the alert regulations. Rather, I believe that the problem is that the alert regulations are not integrated into a comprehensive education system. I think that the ACBL should consider adopting a policy of the following form. Convene yet another committee, this time consisting of the most successful bridge teachers in the ACBL - people like Eddie Kantar, Audrey Grant, Bill Root. Have this group define a "Standard American" system. Define this system precisely. Use this bidding system as the basis for ACBL education programs. If you're learning bridge through the ACBL either via an accredited teaching program, the ACBL web page, or ACBL publications this "Standard American" bidding system is what you are learning. Use the bidding system as the basis for the beginner flights during tournaments. If you're playing in the flight C game, you are playing the standard system. No exceptions. If you want to adopt some non-standard bids, than you shouldn't be playing with the beginners. Also use the bidding system to define the alert structure for all flights If your bid means the same thing that it does under the "Standard American" bidding system, than it does not require an alert (see, we just defined standard for this one zonal organization). If your bid means something different than a warning is appropriate. This alert system is undoubtedly a complex one. It requires that players understand the "standard" bidding system, even if they don't ever intend to play it. However, by using this same system as the basis for player education, novice flights, and the alert structure I think there will be enough synergy that players are able to handle the complexity of the system. For many years, before drifting into high tech I worked as an educator. (Used to teach college economics and later TCP/IP flow dynamics) My experiences suggest that individuals are able to learn very complex subjects, but the key to presenting this type of information NOT to try to provide long lists of unrelated facts but rather to try to integrate subject matter into an integrated structure. As long as you provide a frame work that can be used to relate the facts into a coherent whole, people can remember them quite easily. If can't provide this type of framework, maybe you better rethink the material that your trying to present. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 02:20:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:20:03 +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 CAA05052 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:19:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaLpa-0006px-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:23:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:13:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE References: <363C0546.2A6@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <363C0546.2A6@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 Claude DADOUN wrote: >1/2 TABLE > >In case of an odd number of pairs, what is the score you compute=20 >for the table with a phantom pair? >1) Average score of the pair in the session (no score) >2) 60%+ >3) other (like 50%) > >I did not see any regulation in WBF or EBL conditions >pity, it happen quite often even in WBF or EBL championships. >and I saw Chiefs TD desagree when comes the probem. > >in France computer's programs give average score. >I know it is different for some countries. >I saw even a TD scoring 55% (why not 53% 274..!!!) > >Law 88 awards 60+ when a concurent did not play a board scheduled=20 >to be played. >In our case, we can considere than the board is not scheduled for that >pair. > > 2) 60+ is simple but give an unfair avantage (+ everybody agree=20 > less boards you play more chance you have to get a high score=20 > in the session) > > 1) average brings a problem when a pair leaves the tournament after=20 > some rounds or after one session. > -cancel the scores ? > -continue with 60+ or average for the rest of the tournament? > >I would like do know if your country has regulations for it. The EBU has a Supplement to the EBL guide. it contains the following: 80.25 Withdrawals/non-arrival and stand-by contestants 80.25.1 Failure to arrive A contestant who fails to arrive for an event/session is deemed to be a withdrawn contestant. 80.25.2 All play all event If a contestant withdraws before half of the event is completed, all scores obtained against that contestant are cancelled. If a contestant withdraws after half of the event is completed, all scores obtained against that contestant stand. Opponents who cannot now play that withdrawn contestant receive the best score from the following (any fraction resolved upwards to the minimum unit of scoring): =B7 their own average over the entire competition; =B7 the converse of the withdrawn opponents' average over the competition so far; =B7 in a contest scored by victory points: 12 out of 20 (6 out of 10) 7.5 out of l2 12.5 on a 20 to -3 or -5 scale (17.5 on an EBL 25 to 0 scale) etc.; =B7 in a contest scored by match-points (not converted to VPs): 60% of the total match-points available in the match/round; =B7 in any other method of scoring, the equivalent of two boards at 60% and the remainder at 50%, eg +6 IMPs or +200 aggregate points, regardless of the number of boards in the match/round; =B7 in aggravated circumstances, a more generous indemnity may be awarded. 80.25.3 Not all play all - withdrawal at the end of a session All scores obtained against the withdrawn contestant stand. Any contestant required to 'sit out' as a result of the withdrawal is treated in exactly the same way as though the sit-out had been pre- scheduled (see EBU 80.29). 80.25.4 Not all play all - withdrawal part way through a session All scores obtained against the withdrawn contestant stand. Any contestant required to 'sit out' as a result of the withdrawal receives, in a standard pairs contest, 60% per board not played or session average, whichever is higher. 80.25.5 Late arrival Example a pairs session might begin with a half-table, as one pair entered for the competition have not yet arrived. Any boards which cannot be played are scored 60%-40%. However, if the pair fails to arrive at all, then the 60%-40% scores are cancelled and pairs required to sit out have their score factored in the usual way instead (see EBU 80.29). 80.25.6 Movement to be used It is not always possible to accommodate a late contestant in this way once the competition has begun. The TD should set up the best movement possible based upon the numbers actually present at the starting time. If the effect of this movement would be such that a duly entered contestant could not then be accommodated within ten minutes of the published starting time, then the TD should delay the start by ten minutes before proceeding. A procedural penalty should normally be the standard amount (see EBU 12.24) for a delay of greater than five minutes. 80.25.7 Notified late arrival If a contestant has advised that he will be late, then the TD should start the movement on time on the assumption that the contestant will arrive in due course. Unplayed boards/matches are scored as above. Also: 80.29 Sit outs A contestant who sits out for a set of boards receives their average for the whole stage of the tournament involved, not their average for the session involved. --=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 Tue Nov 3 02:28:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:28:38 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05068 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:28:32 +1100 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.240]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981102153158.ELEJ9725@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:31:58 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: What is the ruling Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:01:28 -0600 Message-ID: <01be0671$ab243320$74c6420c@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 Grattan wrote: >++++ Fine, but not every partnership changes either its agreements or its >composition when one of the pair tends to forget bits of their agreements >regularly. So when the cap fits it should be worn. I would also think >that if the forgetfulness occurs twice or more within a short space that >is reason enough to protect opponents' interests. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Supplies I carry to help pairs remember or modify their convention cards: white out erasers It works. :)) Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 03:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:29:52 +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 DAA05275 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:29:37 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaMv3-0000uo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:33:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:29:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ghestem again In-Reply-To: <363DA39A.E5213945@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <363DA39A.E5213945@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Two suiters always pose problems, but this one I had not yet seen >before. > >The bidding starts 1He-(2He). > >This is explained as Ghestem. > >Now if you know Ghestem, this is supposed to be a two-suiter Spades & >Clubs. > >Only partner explained it as Diamonds and Clubs. > >Guess what the player had ? correct : Spades and Diamonds. > >Can you believe that we changed to 6 clubs making 7, only narrowly >deciding not to award 7 ? > I write a somewhat scurrilous series for "English Bridge" called "What the Director Sees". I get into certain amount of trouble from EBUHiQ (a city not entirely on this planet) for it. It is a mixture of black humoUr, ruling problems etc and is mildly educational. I bang on about Ghestem, Quantum etc quite a bit. Just for amusement I enclose an extract from of one of these articles. If it's inappropriate for this forum, no doubt I'll get told, but I think it is relevant to this thread. I hope you all enjoy :) Cheers John ...... There was a hand which I had to rule on at both tables in the Swiss Teams. At one table the auction had gone 1D, 3C overcall unalerted but actually Ghestem showing both majors. At the other table the auction had gone 1D, 3D overcall alerted and described as Spades and Clubs but actually Quantum showing both majors. The actual hand was both majors. So at one Table I adjusted from 5D+2 to 6D+1, and at the other I adjusted from 5D+1 to 6D=. Not surprisingly this had little effect on the outcome of the match. I managed to persuade the players not to appeal, pointing out that I'd make sure the same committee heard both cases and whatever the merit of the appeal it seemed likely that their decisions would probably be similar in both cases. Whilst squabbling with the Caddy Pack (+) in the chariot on the way home I wondered whether the appeal committee would have kept both deposits, given that the appeals might have merit but are probably frivolous in that they have no effect on the score. Jottings - Ghestem Warning There are probably more rulings over forgotten Ghestem, reverse Ghestem, modified Ghestem and Quantum calls than any other area in the auction. To put it bluntly when a pair mucks up an explicitly defined 2-suited overcall either by describing it differently from what they have on their convention card, or not having it on the card and describing a hand partner doesn't hold then they are about to lose their argument with the TD, with the appeals committee, with the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee, no doubt with the BBL, the EBL (European Bridge League), the Portland Club and probably with the WBF and blml too. We're not quite as draconian as, for example, the Dutch, Danes or Belgians who just adjust the score. We listen to the arguments and then we adjust the score. (You get the show trial with a pre-ordained verdict). Playing in the Gold Cup (*) Proddy opened 1D (precision), RHO bid 3D (alerted as majors, Quantum bid) and holding Kxx, x Kxxxxx xxx I bid 3H, natural 3 or 4-carder NT probe (out-and-out psyche). My LHO hesitated for about a minute and then passed. Proddy bid 3NT which RHO reluctantly passed. I passed, LHO passed looking furious (knowing I'd nailed him and not being able to bid because of the hesitation), and on the non heart lead (the other hesitation guaranteed that) it quietly went off 1. That was a pretty good result against their vul 10-card fit heart game. I assume that opponents playing these methods won't be sure of them and one way or another I'll get a good board, even if they have remembered. Moral: Ghestem (Quantum) is bad for your wealth ........ (*) Gold Cup = British Premier KO event (48 board matches) (+) Caddy Pack = My two youngest teenage kids, excellent caddies -- 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 Nov 3 03:32:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:32:37 +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 DAA05293 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:32:30 +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 KAA29687 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:49:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102113514.007c1160@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 11:35:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <1998Nov02.100000.1189.285352@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 11/2/98 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: >This alert system is undoubtedly a complex one. It requires that players >understand the "standard" bidding system, even if they don't ever intend >to play it. However, by using this same system as the basis for player >education, novice flights, and the alert structure I think there will be >enough synergy that players are able to handle the complexity of the >system. For many years, before drifting into high tech I worked as an >educator. (Used to teach college economics and later TCP/IP flow >dynamics) My experiences suggest that individuals are able to learn very >complex subjects, but the key to presenting this type of information NOT >to try to provide long lists of unrelated facts but rather to try to >integrate subject matter into an integrated structure. By defining standard in the way you suggest, you have just presented a long list of unrelated facts. You also assume that all teaching of novices is done the same way. I used to teach bridge using the books authored by Baron and Stewart, there were subtle differences between those mehtods and the Club Series (choice of opening with 44 in the minors being the first that comes to mind). It seem more appropriate to me to alert all artificial bids rather than all non-standard. It is much easier to define artificial than non-standard. This way, students who have been taught different approaches to bidding can easily adopt the alert procedure. Heck, my mother could even handle that. But, even though she has been playing bridge for more years than I have been alive, she could not handle the current ACBL alert procedure. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 04:08:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:08:17 +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 EAA05382 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:08:07 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaMxe-0005U7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:36:11 +0000 Message-ID: <0nr0blAt8dP2EwNa@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:34:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <01be0671$ab243320$74c6420c@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01be0671$ab243320$74c6420c@514160629worldnet.att.net>, Richard F Beye writes >Grattan wrote: > >>++++ Fine, but not every partnership changes either its agreements or its >>composition when one of the pair tends to forget bits of their agreements >>regularly. So when the cap fits it should be worn. I would also think >>that if the forgetfulness occurs twice or more within a short space that >>is reason enough to protect opponents' interests. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > >Supplies I carry to help pairs remember or modify their convention cards: > white out > erasers >It works. :)) > >Rick > > Do you amend the cc for them there and then? I love it!! -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 04:09:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:09:10 +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 EAA05396 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:09:04 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaNXA-0002X3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:12:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:52:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes big snip > > Also: > > >80.29 Sit outs >A contestant who sits out for a set of boards receives their average for >the whole stage of the tournament involved, not their average for the >session involved. > This rule is so obvious I am mind boggled that there are any other approaches. Awarding an artificial score like 60% is just bizarre. This leads to a major modification to scoring programs, because overall ranking lists in multi-session events are not the sum of the percentages scored in each session. One has to carry around the raw matchpoint score and the number of boards played for each contestant, as well as the average score for the session and the factoring can be very complex. For example: If a table withdraws from an event after the first session (husband/husband wife/wife partnerships with an illness would be an obvious example) then the average for a board in each session will have changed. There are two approaches here. One is to say a matchpoint is a matchpoint and differing available averages should be ignored which is what I believe is the EBU approach (which I disagree with). The other is to say that the average on a board should be the same for each session, regardless of the number of boards are played. This leads to factoring the raw matchpoints for each session by the ratio of the averages to give a weighted raw matchpoint score (now we are comparing cheese with cheese not chalk) and then summing these figures for each contestant and dividing by the numer of boards actually played. When you compound this with boards that are played different numbers of times the computation is considerable. -- 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 Nov 3 04:37:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:37:43 +1100 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 EAA05498 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:37:37 +1100 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 JAA28719 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:41:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811021741.JAA28719@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:36:58 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > > New Thread > In the case of the ACBL, I don't think that players necessarily object > to the complexity of the alert regulations. They don't know them, don't follow them, and they are not normally enforced, so of course they don't object. If players were given a PP for every failure to Alert (as is assessed in many cases reaching an AC), you would hear lots of objections. With the help of Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, I am refining my digest of the Alert Regulation (two page .txt file, one-page WordPerfect file). Gary will then critique the entire digest, correcting any misinterpretations (in his view) that I have included. When that is done the digest will be semi-official. It is possible that Gary will promulgate it also, perhaps in *The Bulletin* of the ACBL, making it truly "official." The yet-unofficial digest is available from me now for the asking. Stipulate .txt or .wpd file. There have been a few minor changes recently, some due to discussions with Gary, so anyone with an older version might want a new one. > Rather, I believe that the > problem is that the alert regulations are not integrated into a > comprehensive education system. I think that the ACBL should consider > adopting a policy of the following form. > > Convene yet another committee, this time consisting of the most > successful bridge teachers in the ACBL - people like Eddie Kantar, Audrey > Grant, Bill Root. Have this group define a "Standard American" system. > Define this system precisely. Why not use "Bridge World Standard," the consensus product of many experts? It is widely known and freely available (www.bridgeworld.com, under "References and Miscellaneous"). If BWS is too detailed for some purposes, a simpler version could easily be produced from it. > > Use this bidding system as the basis for ACBL education programs. If > you're learning bridge through the ACBL either via an accredited teaching > program, the ACBL web page, or ACBL publications this "Standard American" > bidding system is what you are learning. The trouble with Standard American is that it is a crappy system for beginners, who should be learning how to play cards before delving into five-card majors, three-card minors, and all the gadgets needed to make the system playable. Tony Forrester has the right idea in his *Play Bridge at Home*. It starts beginners out with weak notrumps, which takes away all the problems associated with minimum opening bids on balanced hands. With stronger hands they just bid their best suit, since rebid problems are seldom serious. After they learn how to play cards, they can go on to a more sophisticated bidding system. > > Use the bidding system as the basis for the beginner flights during > tournaments. If you're playing in the flight C game, you are playing the > standard system. No exceptions. If you want to adopt some non-standard > bids, than you shouldn't be playing with the beginners. Great idea. Let them learn to play cards before they fiddle with innumerable conventions. Partnerships can change readily with no discussion needed. > > Also use the bidding system to define the alert structure for all flights > If your bid means the same thing that it does under the "Standard > American" bidding system, than it does not require an alert (see, we just > defined standard for this one zonal organization). If your bid means > something different then a warning is appropriate. Depends on whether the system chosen for this purpose is a very elementary one, as I would prefer, a moderately complicated one (e.g., a simplified BWS), or a complicated one like full-blown BWS. If the middle choice, then yes. > > This alert system is undoubtedly a complex one. Depends on the complexity of the "Standard American" specification. (Snip of more good stuff) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 04:55:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:55:48 +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 EAA05555 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:55:40 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hrz-198-161.access.net.il [192.116.198.161]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA09531; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:56:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <363DF248.2BBFC055@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:56:24 +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: What is the ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David S I expected you'll help me with the most important rules !!! As long as you remember , law 99 is the " TD - use your brains" . "bridge is a game of mistakes" is law 98 ......... Please correct your MFLB (M=marvelous ) . thank you Dany David Stevenson wrote: > .......snip ........... > 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. > ........snip From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 05:30:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:30:40 +1100 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 FAA05692 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:30:34 +1100 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 KAA05200 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:34:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811021834.KAA05200@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:30:43 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: > This way [a simple Alert system described], students who have been taught > different approaches to bidding can easily adopt the alert procedure. > Heck, my mother could even handle that. But, even though she has been > playing bridge for more years than I have been alive, she could not handle > the current ACBL alert procedure. > Your mother and everyone else. After more than a year of working with the ACBL Alert Procedure, summarizing it and trying to resolve its omissions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, complexities, etc., I have yet to meet anyone, TD or other, who has really mastered it, and that includes me. Moreover, as with the Laws, if two people who think they have mastered Alerts were to compare their understandings in detail, they would inevitably find many disagreements. Diagnostic test to determine the degree of mastery over Alerts: Ask the subject when an unusual 4NT bid showing the minors must be Alerted. Answer: Not Alertable, even as a jump bid, if the bid immediately preceding it (ignoring pass, double, or redouble) was made by an opponent, Alertable if made by partner. Even if made by partner, not immediately Alertable if the 4NT bidder's opened the bidding and opener has had an opportunity to rebid (although he/she may have passed on the second round). In that case the 4NT bid is Alerted after the bidding is complete (a "Post-Alert"), by a declarer prior to the opening lead, by a defender (partner of the 4NT bidder) after the opening lead but before declarer has played a card from dummy (while the lead is still face-down, preferably). It is not clear whether this "Post-Alert" is applicable to the side that did not open the bidding. I assume not, but I could be wrong. The rule is: "Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at the four level or higher should be Alerted until the auction is over." Taken literally, that would apply to both sides. Should "no conventional calls" have been "no normally Alertable calls," since some Alertable calls are not conventions? I assume so, but I could be wrong. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 05:32:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:32:16 +1100 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 FAA05712 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 05:32:10 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA03986 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:35:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003944; Mon Nov 2 12:35:13 1998 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0665.916DAC60@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:34:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0665.916DAC60@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:03:42 -0500 Encoding: 71 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think this is a positively HORRID idea. Why should you tell a developing player that to make any development of his bidding he must venture beyond his comfort zone and play against people far advanced over his level? If you had limited this to NOVICE or perhaps 49er games I could see some merit. But not every player with a hundred some points is anxious (or welcome) to play a 300-1500 flight B game. He heads toward that point as he refines his bidding system. Why hamstring him? Also, every attempt the ACBL has made to define a "standard" bidding system has been an abysmal failure. Remember yellow card...which the online novices seem to misinterpret as a playable system? Why mandate the atrocious? This is also an affront to bridge teachers who have success with methods that differ from the Audrey Grant standard. There are other good ways to teach. Finally, what of players from other areas who wish to participate in NABC's? Are Acol players unwelcome below Flight B? Has simple precision (a fine system for a new player) been relegated to a HUM role? If you must have a "standard" for alerting purposes, why not use BWS and not some pablum system that places a premium on learning bidding that closes off higher levels to most aspiring players? It is also a considerable imposition on the moderately qualified Flight B player to force him to learn a useless novice system in order to properly alert. This demand could drive many players away. And there will be enormous protest from the elderly who are set in their ways and don't want to learn ANY new system. (But elderly Flight B players are only the vast majority of our paying customers, so who cares if we offend them.) Craig From: Richard Willey[SMTP:REW@azure-tech.com] New Thread (In the case of the ACBL, I don't think that players necessarily object to the complexity of the alert regulations. Rather, I believe that the problem is that the alert regulations are not integrated into a comprehensive education system. I think that the ACBL should consider adopting a policy of the following form. Convene yet another committee, this time consisting of the most successful bridge teachers in the ACBL - people like Eddie Kantar, Audrey Grant, Bill Root. Have this group define a "Standard American" system. Define this system precisely. Use this bidding system as the basis for ACBL education programs. If you're learning bridge through the ACBL either via an accredited teaching program, the ACBL web page, or ACBL publications this "Standard American" bidding system is what you are learning. Use the bidding system as the basis for the beginner flights during tournaments. If you're playing in the flight C game, you are playing the standard system. No exceptions. If you want to adopt some non-standard bids, than you shouldn't be playing with the beginners. Also use the bidding system to define the alert structure for all flights If your bid means the same thing that it does under the "Standard American" bidding system, than it does not require an alert (see, we just defined standard for this one zonal organization). If your bid means something different than a warning is appropriate. This alert system is undoubtedly a complex one. It requires that players understand the "standard" bidding system, even if they don't ever intend to play it. However, by using this same system as the basis for player education, novice flights, and the alert structure I think there will be enough synergy that players are able to handle the complexity of the system. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 07:13:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:13:21 +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 HAA06013 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:13:14 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id PAA23977 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:17:11 -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-1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 15:17:47 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) Message-ID: <1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638@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, 02 Nov 1998 15:17:47 -0400 Subject: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Craig Senior[SMTP:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 2:06 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, >If you had limited this to NOVICE or perhaps 49er games I could see some >merit. But not every player with a hundred some points is anxious (or >welcome) to play a 300-1500 flight B game. He heads toward that point as he >refines his bidding system. Why hamstring him? I am certainly open to suggestions about at when players should be allowed to start using other bids. I'm quite sure it shouldn't be at the novice or new comers events. >Finally, what of players from other areas who wish to participate in >NABC's? Are Acol players unwelcome below Flight B? Has simple precision (a >fine system for a new player) been relegated to a HUM role? Precision and Acol certainly are not HUMs. However, they are not popular systems here within the United States. I see nothing wrong with expecting pairs who wish to use these methods to play in a higher flight in order to spare the novices from having to cope with bidding that they've never seen before. >Also, every attempt the ACBL has made to define a "standard" bidding system >has been an abysmal failure. Remember yellow card...which the online >novices seem to misinterpret as a playable system? Why mandate the >atrocious? Believe me, I don't consider Yellow Card a good system. I certainly am not suggesting mandating its use. I believe that the ACBL's failure with SAYC, Classic Bridge, and a host of other similar attempts have been cause by poor implementation, not necessarily with the basic idea. I believe that properly integrating such a system with an education program is the key to success. I'd appreciate comments from any of our Dutch posters about their own education and player development systems. >This is also an affront to bridge teachers who have success with >methods that differ from the Audrey Grant standard. There are >other good ways to teach. Two different issues here. The first is what material should be taught. I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is worth considering. Have any of the National Bridge Organizations standardized on a single bidding system? Its my understanding that in France, for example, there is a fairly tight consensus about what constitutes "standard". The second issue is how to teach this material. I could care less how a teacher presents specific pieces of information as long as he does a good job in getting his point across. >And there will be enormous protest from the elderly who are set in their ways >and don't want to learn ANY new system. (But elderly Flight B players are >only the vast majority of our paying customers, so who cares if we offend them.) The elderly flight B players who are "the vast majority of our paying customers" are going to be gone in a ten years regardless of what we do. I'd rather focus efforts on new player recruitment and development, even if it means alienating some of our existing membership base today. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 07:30:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:30:44 +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 HAA06055 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:30:38 +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, 2 Nov 1998 12:34:34 -0800 Message-ID: <363E17FE.8D1CB9F8@home.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:37:18 -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: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F62194541@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Kent wrote: > 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? An idiot? No - but your "vigilanteism" against yourself is completely misplaced and unnecessary. Why? Because the Laws already protect the NOS in case you remembered correctly and it was your pard who misexplained. Since that protection is extended to cases where there is doubt abt whether it was "MB" or "ME", gratuitous "info" abt what sometimes may happen can only damage the NOS by "planting seeds" of uncertainty where maybe none was warranted. Why not just play by the rules and let the FLB, TDs and ACs take care of matters in case of an infraction, instead of constantly "second-guessing" what might be best for the opponents? It is a great shame that a well-intended concept such as "active ethics" is misused to the extent it is, even by those who should know better. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 08:57:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:57:23 +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 IAA06315 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:57:17 +1100 Received: from ip30.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.30]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981102220112.EOLY2535.fep4@ip30.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:01:12 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ghestem again Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 23:01:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3643271a.2330140@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:29:46 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: [About two-suited overcalls] >We're not quite as >draconian as, for example, the Dutch, Danes or Belgians who just adjust >the score. Danes? Where did you get that from? >We listen to the arguments and then we adjust the score. (You >get the show trial with a pre-ordained verdict). That is just about what we do in Denmark too. Seriously, we do not adjust automatically, but there is a an old ruling from our National AC which set a precedent for not allowing players to detect their misbid unless the probability of their also doing so without UI is very very very close to 100%. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 09:44:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:44:52 +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 JAA06522 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:44:46 +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 RAA26045 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA23211 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:48:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:48:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811022248.RAA23211@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Every time I alert and explain our partnership agreements, I am > obliged to recount a dossier of the times partner did or did not remember > it? Does anyone else think not? (At least if we reduce the wild exaggeration of "dossier" to an indication that an agreement is likely to be forgotten if there is partnership experience to suggest so.) I'd have thought "all" (L75C) was pretty clear. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 09:50:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:50:48 +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 JAA06585 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:50:41 +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 QAA27707 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:36:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102172207.007b6920@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:22:07 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi In-Reply-To: <1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 11/2/98 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: >I am certainly open to suggestions about at when players should be >allowed to start using other bids. I'm quite sure it shouldn't be at the >novice or new comers events. Allowed to use other bids? Are you listening to yourself? When do novices learn Stayman? Do newcomers start with weak or strong two-bids. Have they been introduced to negative doubles. If you demand that all newcomers must use the exact same system you require that they have gotten to a certain point in their bridge education. Before that they are excluded. After that they are excluded. Good idea! >>Finally, what of players from other areas who wish to participate in >>NABC's? Are Acol players unwelcome below Flight B? Has simple precision >(a >>fine system for a new player) been relegated to a HUM role? > >Precision and Acol certainly are not HUMs. However, they are not popular >systems here within the United States. I see nothing wrong with >expecting pairs who wish to use these methods to play in a higher flight >in order to spare the novices from having to cope with bidding that >they've never seen before. In other words, if you happen to learn from someone who teaches you ACOL instead of Standard American you're just out of luck? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 09:56:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:56:36 +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 JAA06612 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:56:27 +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 SAA24976 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:00:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA23252 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:00:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:00:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811022300.SAA23252@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > The arguments > that I am making are predicated completely on the technical nature of the > online line playing environment. I do not believe that the same alert > system is necessarily appropriate for a game conducted under different > playing conditions. It would be remarkable indeed if optimal regulations were the same for online and f2f bridge. > I do, however, believe that the 2S jump > should be accompanied by an explanation describing the specific meaning > of the 2S jump. _For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call (except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word explanation? There would be no alerts; only the announcements. You would be welcome to use more words if you think the situation requires. Of course I don't think announcements should be mandatory if everyone at the table knows what is going on. There is no need for automatic penalties. But if there is any damage from MI and there was no announcement, an adjustment would be virtually automatic. Is a system like this really so onerous? Is it worse than a complicated alert scheme? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 10:39:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:39:03 +1100 Received: from pm02sm.pmm.cw.net (pm02sm.pmm.cw.net [208.159.126.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06689 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:38:56 +1100 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr21-dialup1.mix1.Bloomington.cw.net [166.55.24.1]) by PM02SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #33506) with SMTP id <0F1T00OK2J6HTM@PM02SM.PMM.CW.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 15:41:29 -0800 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000901be06ba$537039a0$011837a6@uymfdlvk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >_For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call >(except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word >explanation? There would be no alerts; only the announcements. You >would be welcome to use more words if you think the situation >requires. > >Of course I don't think announcements should be mandatory if everyone >at the table knows what is going on. There is no need for automatic >penalties. But if there is any damage from MI and there was no >announcement, an adjustment would be virtually automatic. > >Is a system like this really so onerous? Is it worse than a >complicated alert scheme? Isn't this just "adjective bridge"? We have played it from time to time as a variety, for the fun of it. The problem is that it completely favors experienced players---since they know every convention known to man, they can play 2 D as weak, strong, multi, starwars or 6 other things, depending on their hand. The weaker players don't know the options available, and are at even more of a disadvantage than usual. It sounds like a fun game for the club once in a great while, but it doesn't work out in practice. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 10:58:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:58:26 +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 KAA06751 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:58:17 +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 SAA06115 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:15:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102190106.007cee10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:01:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <199811022300.SAA23252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:00 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >_For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call >(except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word >explanation? What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 11:05:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:05:13 +1100 Received: from sb.net (root@sb.net [209.241.234.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06771 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:05:07 +1100 Received: from 207.205.158.200 (pool-207-205-156-119.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.119]) by sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA09369; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:07:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <363E5557.487C@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:00:06 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling References: <199811022248.RAA23211@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Every time I alert and explain our partnership agreements, I am > > obliged to recount a dossier of the times partner did or did not remember > > it? > > Does anyone else think not? (At least if we reduce the wild > exaggeration of "dossier" to an indication that an agreement is likely > to be forgotten if there is partnership experience to suggest so.) > > I'd have thought "all" (L75C) was pretty clear. I think we've got an obligation to show any partnership agreements and tendencies. My partners and I have the agreement that the cheaper of 4th suit or 2N is negative after a reverse; one tends to forget. I explain this to the opponents. This annoys some of the opponents, but I think it's right. I've had several instances of myself or partners giving the opponents extra information based on special knowledge, ranging from "He might not have his bid because he thinks we're shooting for a 75% game," to "Our agreement is that he bids that way because there's a reason from his hand to play it from his side, but he saw me play the last two, so he might just be a pig," to, upon inquiry, "He never psychs initially, but based on your partner's tank and your reaching for the bid box before he put his hand on a bid, it wouldn't surprise me." Regular partners develop all kinds of special agreements and situational reads. I say -- and I think the rules say -- share them with the opponents. I don't agree, however, with the obnoxious attitude by many directors that one mistake, or tactical bid, or whatever makes an agreement. If, tomorrow, pard opens 1NT and I respond 2C with Kxxxx x AQx Jxxx, and over 2D follow with 3H (agreed as Smolen: 5 spades and 4 hearts), that doesn't change our agreement or alerting pattern. However, it could be that we should alert the opponents without this ever occurring, such as if we had a conversation about this tactic. What you know or suspect, your opponents have a right to know or suspect. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 11:09:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:09:46 +1100 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 LAA06789 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:09:40 +1100 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 TAA27685 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:13:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:13:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811030013.TAA16392@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <000901be06ba$537039a0$011837a6@uymfdlvk> (message from Chris Pisarra on Mon, 02 Nov 1998 15:41:29 -0800) Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra writes: > Steve Willner wrote: >> _For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call >> (except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word >> explanation? There would be no alerts; only the announcements. You >> would be welcome to use more words if you think the situation >> requires. >> >> Of course I don't think announcements should be mandatory if everyone >> at the table knows what is going on. There is no need for automatic >> penalties. But if there is any damage from MI and there was no >> announcement, an adjustment would be virtually automatic. >> >> Is a system like this really so onerous? Is it worse than a >> complicated alert scheme? > Isn't this just "adjective bridge"? We have played it from time to time > as a variety, for the fun of it. > The problem is that it completely favors experienced players---since > they know every convention known to man, they can play 2 D as weak, strong, > multi, starwars or 6 other things, depending on their hand. The weaker > players don't know the options available, and are at even more of a > disadvantage than usual. The suggestion is that the announcement go to the opponents only, in on-line games. If you play 2D as Flannery, you can type "2D Flannery", partner will see only "2D", and the opponents don't need to slow things down by asking and waiting for a response, as they would with alerts. -- 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 Nov 3 11:42:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:42:47 +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 LAA06851 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:42:40 +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 SAA09474 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:59:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102194530.007c0100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:45:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <000901be06ba$537039a0$011837a6@uymfdlvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:41 PM 11/2/98 -0800, Chris Pisarra wrote: > Isn't this just "adjective bridge"? We have played it from time to time >as a variety, for the fun of it. What you miss is that the one word explanation would be seen by the opponents only. Partner does not see the explanation. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 11:44:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:44:40 +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 LAA06866 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:44:34 +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 TAA27695 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA23394 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:48:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:48:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811030048.TAA23394@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Chris Pisarra > Isn't this just "adjective bridge"? We have played it from time to time > as a variety, for the fun of it. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that announcements go only to the opponents. Partner never sees them. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 11:46:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:46:19 +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 LAA06880 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:46:13 +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 TAA27761 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:50:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA23401 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:50:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:50:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811030050.TAA23401@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club > opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. '3+' If they need to know more, they can ask. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 13:20:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:20:12 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f327.hotmail.com [207.82.250.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07058 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:20:06 +1100 Received: (qmail 1906 invoked by uid 0); 3 Nov 1998 02:23:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19981103022333.1905.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.150 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:23:33 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.150] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:23:33 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >> What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one >>club opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. > >'3+' > >If they need to know more, they can ask. > I'm going to give more than that - but I allowed a "one-line" or a "5-second" explanation when I suggested it. Also, they have the knowledge that we are playing "5cM, whatever NT, Strong 2C, nat. wk 2s" by our pre-alert at beginning of the round. "4+, 3 if no 5cM, no 4D, and no NT bid avail" If they... And if they tell me that they have some knowledge of SA, "3+" is probably all I'll give them, too :-) Michael "and do you not expect them to explain their "standard" 1C opener?" Farebrother. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 15:22:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:22:20 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f213.hotmail.com [207.82.251.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07351 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:22:13 +1100 Received: (qmail 28608 invoked by uid 0); 3 Nov 1998 04:25:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19981103042540.28607.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.150 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:25:40 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.150] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:25:40 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:48:43 -0500 (EST) >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: What is the ruling > >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Every time I alert and explain our partnership agreements, I am >> obliged to recount a dossier of the times partner did or did not >>remember it? > And what if I forget that he forgot, two years ago? Or if he forgot once, while we were switching from MSS to 4-suit transfers? >Does anyone else think not? (At least if we reduce the wild >exaggeration of "dossier" to an indication that an agreement is >likely to be forgotten if there is partnership experience to suggest >so.) > >I'd have thought "all" (L75C) was pretty clear. > Of course, this brings us back to what makes a partnership understanding. And that can be dangerous...As an example, let's take the Silver 1NT (12-14 or 15-17, depending on whether he forgot what range he's playing*). How many times must pard get it wrong before it becomes a "partnership understanding" that he sometimes forgets, at which point our agreement (or at least what we have to tell opps) is 12-14, but occasionally 15-17. This is restricted under the GCC (ACBL "normal" convention chart) - Stayman now becomes an illegal convention. Something, I think, is wrong with this... Or am I going too far in jumping between partnership agreement and partnership experience? The battle over "when psyches become (undisclosed) partnership agreement" makes me think I'm not, unless I'm punching a hole in that one too. Michael >From David Silver's "Tales out of School". I'm sure Mr. Silver is a much better bidder than Professor Silver - but they're good stories nonetheless. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 15:29:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:29:50 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f48.hotmail.com [207.82.250.59]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07373 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:29:44 +1100 Received: (qmail 8384 invoked by uid 0); 3 Nov 1998 04:33:11 -0000 Message-ID: <19981103043311.8383.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.150 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:33:11 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.150] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjective bridge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:33:11 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Chris Pisarra > > Isn't this just "adjective bridge"? We have played it from time >to time as a variety, for the fun of it. > Others have explained the missing element. but bringing this up reminds me of my favourite adjective bridge bid: "1 washroom club". Taught to me by Jane Thompson (who used it when trying to break the marathon bridge record), we often use it in our fund-raising 24-hours straight games. It is a request for partner to bid eir best suit, which e will play in, so that dummy can get a trip to the WC... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 21:08:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:08:29 +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 VAA08065 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:08:22 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:10:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-189.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.189] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:10:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:13:43 -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: law79b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 79b - No increase in score need be granted unless... I like the change in 1997 law because the old one was too severe The way it is writting means than the change should be exceptional. But I do not see in witch circonstances we increase the score or not. In practice (ex. in Lille) TDs allways changed the score for both side when the two pairs had a new agreement on the score. Good ! I cannot imagine saying to one pair I will not increase the score and later on ruling the opposit way (and committee may not overrule the TD ? - L93b3) It will be hard to explain why.. Unless someone convice me otherwise, I would like to overwrite my law book - "increase in score may be granted" From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 22:08:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:08:45 +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 WAA08269 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:08:39 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26901 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:12:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <363E0980.57BE00AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:35:28 +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: Re: 1/2TABLE References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > big snip > > > This leads to a major modification to scoring programs, because overall > ranking lists in multi-session events are not the sum of the percentages > scored in each session. One has to carry around the raw matchpoint score > and the number of boards played for each contestant, as well as the > average score for the session and the factoring can be very complex. > > For example: If a table withdraws from an event after the first session > (husband/husband wife/wife partnerships with an illness would be an > obvious example) then the average for a board in each session will have > changed. > > There are two approaches here. One is to say a matchpoint is a > matchpoint and differing available averages should be ignored which is > what I believe is the EBU approach (which I disagree with). The other is > to say that the average on a board should be the same for each session, > regardless of the number of boards are played. > > This leads to factoring the raw matchpoints for each session by the > ratio of the averages to give a weighted raw matchpoint score (now we > are comparing cheese with cheese not chalk) and then summing these > figures for each contestant and dividing by the numer of boards actually > played. When you compound this with boards that are played different > numbers of times the computation is considerable. The correct way to deal with these problems is not easy. All is explained on my pages. I should say the problem gets a lot easier when using the Ascherman method of scoring. > -- > 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 Tue Nov 3 22:49:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:49:01 +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 WAA08485 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:48:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaf0v-0005Cs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:52:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:18:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <199811030050.TAA23401@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811030050.TAA23401@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club >> opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. > >'3+' > >If they need to know more, they can ask. Got it. What we are going to do is to make a totally useless partial explanation to totally confuse the inexperienced oppos. Of course that is better than simple alerting rules - isn't it? Does anyone who reads this list actually play against lesser players? Or do we assume that they are not worth bothering about? -- 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 Tue Nov 3 22:56:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:56:46 +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 WAA08526 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:56:39 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA09391 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:59:28 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:59:28 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: law79b In-Reply-To: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Claude DADOUN wrote: > Law 79b - No increase in score need be granted unless... > Unless someone convice me otherwise, I would like to overwrite my law > book - "increase in score may be granted" I think that this is mainly a wording/language issue. In both versions (Law Book and Claude's text), 79B says (to me) that one can increase the score but that one does not have to do this. And this is probably what you want. > In practice (ex. in Lille) TDs allways changed the score for both side > when the two pairs had a new agreement on the score. But, then there is no subsequent disagreement, so the if statement in 79B is false and everything beyond the first comma doesn't apply. (Yeah, I'm a programmer :-) It should be regarded as an error in writing down the score, so 79C applies. 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 Nov 3 23:16:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:16:51 +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 XAA08731 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:16:35 +1100 Received: from default (ppp-cst91.warszawa.tpnet.pl [194.204.131.91]) by zeus.ic.com.pl (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA02609; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:18:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01be0724$c7089c80$5b83ccc2@default> From: "Slawek Latala" To: , "Steve Willner" Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:20:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" 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 Steve Willner wrote: >> What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club >> opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. > >'3+' Polish systems? Not exactly. Opening 1C (Polish Club) means: a) 12-14 balanced, b) 12+ clubs, c) 18+ any distribution, possible 0 clubs, of course. >If they need to know more, they can ask. Do not forget L16A (...suggest...by...a question...). Slawek From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 3 23:55:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:55:02 +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 XAA09137 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:54:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-247.uunet.be [194.7.13.247]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08614 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:58:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <363EEA8B.6CA9D816@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 12:35:39 +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: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi References: <1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > Precision and Acol certainly are not HUMs. However, they are not popular > systems here within the United States. and > I'd appreciate comments from any of our Dutch > posters about their own education and player development systems. > and > Its my understanding that in > France, for example, there is a fairly tight consensus about what > constitutes "standard". The second issue is how to teach this material. Two totally different issues here. As wedged between the two, I have some views on the problems facing the dutch and french teaching methods and players' views. A national program for teaching bridge is a good thing, as the practices in France and the Netherlands clearly show. The fact that all players begin with the same system means they can easily form new partnerships and chart their course in tournament play according to their own abilities. Surely a good thing. However, a standard system taught does not mean that this will be the only system played. I don't know why, but there is a huge difference in approach between the dutch and the french after they have started. Probably because the top all play the same system, the french have few inclinations towards complicated bidding. That means that also in tournament play, a uniform system is the norm. And if you come and play something different, accusations of dishonesty and even cheating are heard. The other end of the scale is to be found in the Netherlands. There everything goes. The second year novice sees exotic systems all round and starts using them too. (often with negative results) That means of course that system regulations in the Netherlands, while in force and well applied, tend to allow more, and at lower levels, than what you will find in France. But it is not as you suggest that a standard teaching system has any influence on system policy as such ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 01:13:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:13:11 +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 BAA11952 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:13:03 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id JAA25121; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:16:46 -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-1998Nov03.084524.1189.285974; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:17:24 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws), timg@maine.rr.com (Tim Goodwin) Message-ID: <1998Nov03.084524.1189.285974@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, 03 Nov 1998 09:17:24 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk nonforcing ---------- From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@maine.rr.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 7:18 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, At 06:00 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >_For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call >(except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word >explanation? What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. Tim ------ Message Header Follows ------ Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Nov02.191855.1189.218232; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:18:57 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:58:26 +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 KAA06751 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:58:17 +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 SAA06115 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:15:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981102190106.007cee10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 19:01:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <199811022300.SAA23252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 01:13:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:13:12 +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 BAA11953 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:13:04 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id JAA25290; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:16:58 -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-1998Nov03.091553.1189.285977; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:17:36 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List), timg@maine.rr.com (Tim Goodwin) Message-ID: <1998Nov03.091553.1189.285977@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, 03 Nov 1998 09:17:36 -0400 Subject: RE: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sadly (and I feel that its mostly my fault) I think this thread has gone beyond the Pale and is now completely removed from the charter of this discussion group. I'm more than willing to carry on this discussion in private email, but unless there are complaints to the contrary, I'll spare the mailing list as a whole. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 01:21:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:21:32 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f330.hotmail.com [207.82.250.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11990 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:21:26 +1100 Received: (qmail 23218 invoked by uid 0); 3 Nov 1998 14:24:54 -0000 Message-ID: <19981103142454.23217.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 06:24:53 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 06:24:53 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Steve Willner wrote: >>> What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club >>> opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. >> >>'3+' >> >>If they need to know more, they can ask. And then David Stevenson wrote: > Got it. > What we are going to do is to make a totally useless partial >explanation to totally confuse the inexperienced oppos. > > Of course that is better than simple alerting rules - isn't it? > > Does anyone who reads this list actually play against lesser players? >Or do we assume that they are not worth bothering about? Good point there, David (and thanks for the list of CUAs, BTW). As one who only plays against lesser mortals (I mean lesser than the contributors to this list, of course, not lesser than me), I get depressed when slightly stronger players use the letter of the law to score cheap points off opponents. If the opponents are then mislead, well then, it seems, so much the better. Surely the laws state that opponents are entitled to a full and lucid explanation of opponent's methods? Isn't that the COTM? May I thank all those who have welcomed me to the list. I won't be contributing as much as many, because, frankly, much of what goes on is above my head, and not applicable to my situation. Rest assured, however, I have been and will continue to read every posting, and will butt in when I have tuppence worth to contribute! I'm certainly enjoying things so far! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 02:53:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:53:53 +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 CAA12869 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:53:46 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zaipk-0000gs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:57:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:29:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law79b References: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <36449BE7.7067@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 Claude DADOUN wrote: >Law 79b - No increase in score need be granted unless... >I like the change in 1997 law because the old one was too severe >The way it is writting means than the change should be exceptional. >But I do not see in witch circonstances we increase the score or not. >In practice (ex. in Lille) TDs allways changed the score for both side >when the two pairs had a new agreement on the score.=7F >Good ! >I cannot imagine saying to one pair I will not increase the score and >later on ruling the opposit way=20 > (and committee may not overrule the TD ? - L93b3) >It will be hard to explain why.. >Unless someone convice me otherwise, I would like to overwrite my law >book - "increase in score may be granted" The basis for the old Law was a major NAmerican tournament where the results were published, and shortly afterwards one of the top players [Kokish?] appeared with two simpering females in tow who explained to the Directors that dear Mr Kokish had really made nine tricks against them, and weren't they silly to have scored it as eight? This gave Kokish the win, and Kaplan said this will never happen again. The point being that it is unsuitable for later changes to be made in favour of a side that is likely to gain heavily from this, and away from a side who has no further interest in the competition. When running Swiss Pairs I have had experience from the same tournament of two cases: one of them was at Table 1 [ie the leading two pairs were playing each other] with one round to go. Two highly ethical pairs had played each other, and dummy had scored a board on the Table Score card as 5D* making: his partner [declarer] and both defenders had put 5D*-1 on their personal score cards. The defence had signed the Table Score card at the end of the match. As a result of that match they were now clear favourites to win the match and their opponents mathematically could no longer do so. When they received their slips for checking the during the next match the "error" was discovered. Should I have allowed a change in the score? I did not. I consider that the Law is designed for exactly this position. If the lawmakers wish to have a Law for this event then it is not up to me as a TD not to follow their dictates. [I was pleased that this pair won anyway, and since they were popular I got nagged by about twenty people at the end of the event!] In the other occasion it concerned an overtrick at table 54 out of 55, ie players who could not possibly win the event. There was no possibility of such a decision favouring one side only: the other side would lose by it as much as they gained. Thus I allowed the change. I believe that until the law makers see fit to change this Law we must apply it when it is suitable to do so. Now that the wording has changed to make it discretionary I believe that the only time no increase in score is to be given is when there is clear benefit to the side that would get the increase, while there is no real disadvantage to their opponents. In other situations I allow an increase in score. How do I explain this to the players? Easy. I read them the law, explain the position, tell them it is an English Bridge Union interpretation, and explain that *of course* there is no suggestion that there is any monkey business going on in this case, but that my hands are tied by the interpretation. Since I am judging whether this is a case covered by the interpretation it is a suitable one for an AC and they may overrule me. --=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 Wed Nov 4 03:55:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:55:01 +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 DAA13401 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:54:53 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcirg.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.112]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA16790 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:58:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981103115509.006c0ed8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:55:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is the ruling In-Reply-To: <199811022248.RAA23211@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:48 PM 11/2/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Every time I alert and explain our partnership agreements, I am >> obliged to recount a dossier of the times partner did or did not remember >> it? > >Does anyone else think not? (At least if we reduce the wild >exaggeration of "dossier" to an indication that an agreement is likely >to be forgotten if there is partnership experience to suggest so.) > >I'd have thought "all" (L75C) was pretty clear. I'm sorry if my phrasing wildly exaggerated your intent, but it seems to me that you have exaggerated the intent of L75C if you insist that a single instance of a forgotten agreement requires an amendment to subsequent explanations of that agreement. Indeed, it seems to me that if we accept the argument that future opponents are entitled to this information, then they are also entitled to a complete description of your partnership experience with this particular agreement (and perhaps related agreements), including not only the relative frequency of remembering/forgetting but also the conditions under which partner has been more or less likely to remember. Absent this "dossier", they will be ill-prepared to assess the probability that the bid means what it says, while you will have an edge in this regard. Let me reiterate: I do not disagree that a _pattern_ of forgetting constitutes the type of partnership experience which must be reported in fulfillment of L75C. Grattan has suggested two instances in a short span of time as one possible standard. That seems a bit harsh to me, but not far from the mark. Certainly three such instances over a span of ten to twenty sessions might constitute a pattern. But there is a downside to the practice of amending your explanation with a comment such as "but partner has a history of forgetting this agreement". The most obvious cost is to partnership comity. Ideally partner would be good-natured about your repeated references to his inadequacies, but not all of my partners have been such sports. Additionally, your remarks may sow doubt or confusion in the opponents' minds where it is not, in fact, warranted. If your comment causes an opponent to make an otherwise marginal double, which happens to fail, is he entitled to redress? Not if your comment accurately describes a relevant pattern of experience. But perhaps so, if your comment is based on a single instance of forgetfulness that occurred three months ago. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 04:10:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:10:19 +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 EAA13547 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:10:12 +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 MAA10408 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA23810 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:14:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:14:14 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811031714.MAA23810@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > What we are going to do is to make a totally useless partial > explanation to totally confuse the inexperienced oppos. I thought the context was a fairly serious, online tournament. The opponents were said to be Polish. I admit nothing was said about their experience level, but in a serious tournament, can't some level of experience be assumed? Announcements are not supposed to be complete explanations, which would seem too burdensome to be worth providing for every call. They are supposed to be a brief indicator of the nature of the call -- something more than 'alert' but quite a bit less than a full explanation. Even if you dislike my specific suggestion for what the announcement should be, it seems to me that the important thing is the principle "announce everything, alert nothing." Is that a reasonable approach or not? On further thought, perhaps the announcement should always start with N or A (natural or artificial), and f or n (forcing or non-forcing) and then the brief indicator. Of course you could make the rules for exactly what the announcement should be a whole lot more complex if you wish, but I think it makes more sense to keep them simple. In practice, standard announcements will evolve for standard auctions. If the overriding principle is that non-disclosers suffer adjustments, I don't think there will be much difficulty with compliance. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 04:12:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:12:25 +1100 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 EAA13568 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:12:18 +1100 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 MAA18785 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:16:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:16:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811031716.MAA08087@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <000c01be0724$c7089c80$5b83ccc2@default> (latala@ic.com.pl) Subject: Explanations in online bridge (was Re: Natural, artificial, conventional,) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have corrected the subject line of this thread; there are several posts which have shown confusion about the context. The suggestion is, in online bridge only, to have a one-word explanation along with each bid, in order to reduce the number of questions and misunderstandings, with such comments as, "1NT 12-14", "2D Flannery", "4NT RKC-1430". The explanation would be sent only to the opponents. Slawek Latala writes: > Steve Willner wrote: >>> What would be your one word explanation of a Standard American one club >>> opening? Assume you're playing against Polish opponents. >> '3+' >> If they need to know more, they can ask. > Do not forget L16A (...suggest...by...a question...). In online bridge (or with screens), this is not a problem; the partner of the questioner does not know about the question. The idea is to provide the same type of information which would normally be on a convention card. My convention card says "3+" next to the 1C opening; if the opponents ask, I can explain the other details (in my case, playing K-S, it is either 15-20 balanced or slightly stronger than minimum (usually 12+) unbalanced.) -- 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 Nov 4 04:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:21:22 +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 EAA13703 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:21:15 +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 MAA10371 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA23831 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:25:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:25:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811031725.MAA23831@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Slawek Latala" > Polish systems? Not exactly. The question was how to announce a Standard American 1m bid to a Polish pair. (I suggested '3+', but perhaps there is a better way.) Of course the explanation of a Polish 1C to an American pair (or to another Polish pair, for that matter) would be different and more complicated. > Opening 1C (Polish Club) means: > a) 12-14 balanced, > b) 12+ clubs, > c) 18+ any distribution, possible 0 clubs, of course. Perhaps '12-14 bal or clubs or any 18+'. I know that's a lot more than one word, but multi-way openings are always going to be more complicated to explain. No doubt players would want to have their announcements for common calls tied to a "hot key" or even completely automated. Or 'CC' might suffice for something that is spelled out in detail on the convention card. > >If they need to know more, they can ask. > > Do not forget L16A (...suggest...by...a question...). In serious online bridge, which is the context of my suggestion, one's partner does not see the question. I have no interest in quibbling about the details of specific announcements. Is the principle "announce all, alert none" a good one or not? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 05:22:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:22:07 +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 FAA14350 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:21:59 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:24:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-208.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.208] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:24:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <363F4A86.6453@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:25:10 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2penatlycards References: <36389184.3C6E@wanadoo.fr> <36394C03.1301@mindspring.com> <363B8C5C.41FF@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude DADOUN wrote: > > 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,Thank you too, for comments on 2penalty cards.I thought, of course, the meaning of the law was like you said at least in case of 2 penalty cards in same suit! I played devil's advocate but I wish that the suggestion's John R. Mayne ( add the word ' also' ) will be adopted for next Code. Remember: Directors have to explain and sometimes to read the Laws to players contester! ( or during a course to Directors student ). Amicably, friendly,...Amicalement From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 05:25:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:25:42 +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 FAA14381 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:25:37 +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; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:29:32 -0800 Message-ID: <363F4C30.304A83CB@home.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:32:16 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Willey CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi References: <1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > The first is what material should be taught. > I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that > developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is > worth considering. It is with "arguments" of this nature that countries like North Korea and Cuba "justify" their political systems. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 05:41:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:41:26 +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 FAA14557 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:41:19 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id NAA17249; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:45:12 -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-1998Nov03.134429.1189.286216; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 13:45:49 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws), willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-ID: <1998Nov03.134429.1189.286216@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, 03 Nov 1998 13:45:49 -0400 Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 6:17 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, >_For online bridge_, what is wrong with a rule that _every_ call >(except a non-conventional pass) should be accompanied by a one-word >explanation? There would be no alerts; only the announcements. You >would be welcome to use more words if you think the situation >requires. > >Is a system like this really so onerous? Is it worse than a >complicated alert scheme? Assume that it was practical to accompany every bid that you made with an appropriate announcement. Furthermore, assume that it required no effort what-so-ever to do so. Would it still be desirable to define an alert system? The "cost" of an alert system is the requirement that players understand and apply an additional set of regulations. The benefit of an alert system is that it associates a particular attribute with an individual bid. I don't consider this to be a simple academic exercise. The announcement process can be automated, which would substantially decrease the nuisance associated with announcing bids. At that point in time, it simply become a matter of trying to determine whether there are any potential alert systems that justify the inconvenience that they introduce. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 05:54:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:54:23 +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 FAA14699 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:54:16 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h14.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id VAA02286; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:57:45 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <363FFB11.5F71@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 22:58:25 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <199811031725.MAA23831@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) It happened to me several times to make such an explanations against pair, used Polish club, Precision etc. And I couldnot (and cannot) make it in one word:) I prefer: 11-22, 3+ clubs, if there is 5+ major - then clubs are 6+. Best wishes Vitold Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Slawek Latala" > > Polish systems? Not exactly. > > The question was how to announce a Standard American 1m bid to a Polish > pair. (I suggested '3+', but perhaps there is a better way.) Of > course the explanation of a Polish 1C to an American pair (or to > another Polish pair, for that matter) would be different and more > complicated. > > > Opening 1C (Polish Club) means: > > a) 12-14 balanced, > > b) 12+ clubs, > > c) 18+ any distribution, possible 0 clubs, of course. > > Perhaps '12-14 bal or clubs or any 18+'. I know that's a lot more than > one word, but multi-way openings are always going to be more > complicated to explain. No doubt players would want to have their > announcements for common calls tied to a "hot key" or even completely > automated. Or 'CC' might suffice for something that is spelled out in > detail on the convention card. > > > >If they need to know more, they can ask. > > > > Do not forget L16A (...suggest...by...a question...). > > In serious online bridge, which is the context of my suggestion, one's > partner does not see the question. > > I have no interest in quibbling about the details of specific > announcements. Is the principle "announce all, alert none" a good one > or not? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 05:54:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:54:56 +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 FAA14713 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:54:49 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id NAA28839 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:58:46 -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-1998Nov03.134000.1189.286224; Tue, 03 Nov 1998 13:59:23 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Nov03.134000.1189.286224@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, 03 Nov 1998 13:59:23 -0400 Subject: RE: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:41 PM To: Richard Willey Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a >> The first is what material should be taught. >> I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that >> developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is >> worth considering. >It is with "arguments" of this nature that countries like North Korea >and Cuba "justify" their political systems. Indeed. Its also how many Universities like Columbia or the University of Chicago justify their "core" curriculum. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 06:29:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:29:55 +1100 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 GAA15108 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:29:50 +1100 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 LAA26978; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:33:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811031933.LAA26978@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Norman Scorbie" , Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:29:30 -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 Norman Scorbie writes: > I get > depressed when slightly stronger players use the letter of the law to > score cheap points off opponents. I know what you mean. When I used to play in tennis tournaments, better players would call me for foot faults, touching the net, and other small violations. When I played in company golf tournaments, they wouldn't allow me to improve my lie. When I played in chess tournaments, a touched piece had to be moved. Why should weaker players be expected to follow the rules so strictly? It isn't good sportsmanship! > If the opponents are then mislead, > well then, it seems, so much the better. Surely the laws state that > opponents are entitled to a full and lucid explanation of opponent's > methods? Isn't that the COTM? > They are entitled to the full and free availability of opponents' special partnership agreements (L75A), not quite the same thing. Methods based on general knowledge and experience need not be disclosed (L75C), and you might have to ask for details after receiving a high-level disclosure. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 06:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:47:27 +1100 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 GAA15337 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:47:21 +1100 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 LAA28851; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:50:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811031950.LAA28851@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jan Kamras" , "Richard Willey" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:48:03 -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 Jan Kamras wrote: > > Richard Willey wrote: > > > The first is what material should be taught. > > I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that > > developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is > > worth considering. > > It is with "arguments" of this nature that countries like North Korea > and Cuba "justify" their political systems. Right on! My grandchildren are taking tennis lessons, and they are taught only basic forehands, backhands, and serves, when they want to learn dropshots, backspin lobs, and other stuff that they see on television. Why not let them learn what they want to learn, and play like they want to play? We *are* talking about novices, aren't we? If I were teaching bridge my students would not be allowed a single convention until they had a good knowledge of the basic, widely accepted, principles of natural bidding, in addition to a good grasp of elementary card combinations, opening leads, defensive tactics, and dummy play. If that's dictatorship, so be it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 07:12:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:12:13 +1100 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 HAA15723 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:12:07 +1100 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 MAA02215 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:15:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811032015.MAA02215@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:11:32 -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 I wrote: > We *are* talking about novices, aren't we? If I were teaching > bridge my students would not be allowed a single convention until > they had a good knowledge of the basic, widely accepted, principles > of natural bidding, in addition to a good grasp of elementary card > combinations, opening leads, defensive tactics, and dummy play. If > that's dictatorship, so be it. Yeah, yeah, I would allow takeout doubles! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 07:55:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:55:32 +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 HAA16060 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:55:27 +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 PAA07935 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:11:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981103155813.007c2100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:58:13 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi In-Reply-To: <199811031950.LAA28851@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >We *are* talking about novices, aren't we? If I were teaching >bridge my students would not be allowed a single convention until >they had a good knowledge of the basic, widely accepted, principles >of natural bidding, in addition to a good grasp of elementary card >combinations, opening leads, defensive tactics, and dummy play. If >that's dictatorship, so be it. Your student are unlikely to be allowed into Richard's novice games where they will be playing Stayman, Blackwood and takeout doubles. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 08:28:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:28:25 +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 IAA16560 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:28:19 +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 AA133938735; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:32:16 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.Uqss.uquebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA277378734; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:32:14 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:31:57 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi 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 I wonder why we speak about bridge teaching on this list, but would like to put my 2 cents. =20 In our school of bridge, novices learn basic bidding based on SA approach, but no conventions exept Blackwood, Takeout X and Stayman. They have to know what to do with a minimum, maximum and in between. They also learn when a bid is forcing, invitatiotional or stop. An important part of the time is spent on card play (the aim of the games: tricks). =20 After five years I am more and more sure it is the best approach. Learning conventions is not a hurry and becomes a source of great confusion if they dont have a solid natural base. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 Objet: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi =20 At 11:48 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: =20 >We *are* talking about novices, aren't we? If I were teaching >bridge my students would not be allowed a single convention until >they had a good knowledge of the basic, widely accepted, principles >of natural bidding, in addition to a good grasp of elementary card >combinations, opening leads, defensive tactics, and dummy play. If >that's dictatorship, so be it. =20 Your student are unlikely to be allowed into Richard's novice games where they will be playing Stayman, Blackwood and takeout doubles. =20 Tim =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 09:23:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:23:09 +1100 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 JAA17277 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:23:03 +1100 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 OAA16658 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:26:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811032226.OAA16658@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:23:56 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote, speaking to me: > Your students are unlikely to be allowed into Richard's novice > games where > they will be playing Stayman, Blackwood and takeout doubles. Yeah, yeah, takeout doubles, I corrected that. I won't let my students into Richard's games until they graduate. I would definitely not allow Blackwood, which I wish I did not allow some of my current partners. Danny Kleinman used to win about 50% of the individual events that were popular 30 years ago. One thing he had going for him was that he refused to play Blackwood. He also had on his convention card that he opened only five-card majors and four-card minors. Those who realized this was pretty impossible with 16-18 notrumps were told that he is lucky enough never to pick up a problem hand. Of course he was lying, but he didn't want partners making bad bids out of fear that a major had four-card length or a minor three-card length. One gets a better appreciation for Stayman after playing without it, as I did for five or six years before it came out. Holding a four-card major we had to raise to 2NT with most invitational hands, hoping that opener would be able to show a major on his way to 3NT. With game-going hands we would jump in our better minor. Five-card majors were a real problem, because the invitational nature of 2H or 2S was dropped in these parts in favor of signoffs, at least when playing duplicate. We had to raise to 2NT with invitational hands, and opener, if he didn't pass, was supposed to bid his better minor if he lacked a major, so we could show the five-carder. With unbalanced hands we usually just took a view, bidding two or three of the major. Some played that a jump to 3H or 3S was invitational. As you can imagine, Stayman and Jacoby Transfers were very welcome when they came along, especially for those of us who did not have an "intonation system," as Mathe called it. Anyway, the ingenuity needed for bidding without Stayman and Jacoby Transfers was good training. We novices could concentrate on card play instead of mulling over the artificial complexities of Stayman and other "modern" gadgets. It is a card game, isn't it? First, learn how to play cards! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 09:36:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:36:39 +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 JAA17464 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:36:29 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:38:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-247.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.247] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:38:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36454B44.63FD@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:41:56 -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: law79b References: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson's comment on L79b is complete (like allways) I am still sceptic on the way the word easy is use. My guess (and my experience?) for this kind of situation is that many TDs will make it easy by just agree with the pairs. in witch case nobody will appeal the decision. There is no many cases where TD can decide the winner of a tournament and here it is one. I am afraid than some inexperience TD will never refuse to change the score if a VIP is involve. The delay is may be not the best one for this situation. Before the end of the round is too short. Waiting for the results of the last session is too much (Kaplan case). May be after the last round of the last session should be allways too late. Adding this in conditions of contest is not against law : it precises when it is not possible to increase the score according to L79b. Amicalement From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 10:49:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:49:08 +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 KAA18597 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:49:01 +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 SAA25264 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA24235 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811032353.SAA24235@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I'm sorry if my phrasing wildly exaggerated your intent, but it seems to me > that you have exaggerated the intent of L75C if you insist that a single > instance of a forgotten agreement requires an amendment to subsequent > explanations of that agreement. I was probably guilty of a bit of exaggeration when I wrote "Next time the explanation should be different." If that one "misbid" was the only mistake (or intentional deviation) in a long history of correct usages, then it is wildly unlikely to occur again. On the other hand, if the misbid reflected real confusion about what the system is, and the confusion isn't firmly settled next time the bid comes up, the opponents are entitled to know. And they are most certainly entitled to know if this "misbid" is part of a pattern of psyching. Of course there will be close cases and grey areas, but I don't think players will go too far wrong if they ask themselves what they would like to know if they were in their opponents' position. Mentioning a single "forget" that occurred two years ago is ridiculous. Three instances or even two in the last six usages seems clear to disclose. Also, it seems clear to me to mention something whenever "agreements" might not be on firm ground. Examples could include any rare sequence that was discussed long ago but hasn't come up since or a new partnership that hasn't had a thorough discussion of the auction in question. At least these last are things I would like to know about my opponents' alleged agreements. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 11:49:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:49:49 +1100 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 LAA19626 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:49:42 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.65] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zar9a-00008D-00; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:50:30 +0000 Message-ID: <002801be078d$88027c40$412f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:53:25 -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 Grattan I have not been following the thread on L79B closely, but I was prompted to look up the Law, and having done so, I do not understand it. The whole of L79 appears to me to be flawed to the point of being nonsensical. L79A - The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. Well, you and I could agree upon it before taking our cards out of the board. Unless the deal is passed out, in which case L79 is unlikely to operate, then the number of tricks won will be 13, and I will accept any bet at any odds that it will not. L79B - No increase in score need be granted unless... Strictly speaking, no "increase in score" is ever possible, since there is no such thing as "the score" on any given deal. Rather, there are two scores which always sum to zero, such as NS +620, EW -620. A change in respect of the number of tricks won by the declaring side will neither increase nor decrease "the score". L79C - the word "expiration" means "the act of breathing out". It is not a synonym for "expiry". None of this (probably) affects the point of the thread on BLML - which, insofar as I have understood it, appears to me an excellent example of the way in which this list might well be of lasting benefit to the conduct of the game. Maybe DWS will read this message after all. Regards David From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 13:26:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:26:08 +1100 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA21665 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:26:03 +1100 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA12331 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:30:06 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981104133012.009776b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:30:13 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: Anton has left the building...? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Please don't expect too much feedback from Anton Kooijman on anything emailed at the moment - his email is bouncing something chronic. I've asked the postmaster of his address (A.KOOIJMAN@DWK.agro.nl) to have a look into it, but haven't heard anything back. If anybody has another communication path with him please let him know. I haven't unsubscribed him yet.... Cheers, Markus P.S. I don't usually cut most subscribers this much slack, but Anton does appear to be a reasonably central person to this list :-) Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 14:34:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:34:33 +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 OAA23206 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:34:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zatm1-0007PA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:38:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:14:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, References: <199811031714.MAA23810@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811031714.MAA23810@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> What we are going to do is to make a totally useless partial >> explanation to totally confuse the inexperienced oppos. > >I thought the context was a fairly serious, online tournament. The >opponents were said to be Polish. I admit nothing was said about their >experience level, but in a serious tournament, can't some level of >experience be assumed? We were talking about alerting in OLB. Don't we alert except in "fairly serious" tournaments? As I have mentioned elsewhere, alerting is a fairly simple affair where top-level players are involved, and replacing alerts with pseudo- explanations will probably work. My worries are that I worry about the lesser players, and especially where alerting is concerned. Aren't poorer Polish players going to play OLB? >Announcements are not supposed to be complete explanations, which would >seem too burdensome to be worth providing for every call. They are >supposed to be a brief indicator of the nature of the call -- something >more than 'alert' but quite a bit less than a full explanation. I don't like the sound of them. No, I don't think they will be as helpful as you do. >Even if you dislike my specific suggestion for what the announcement >should be, it seems to me that the important thing is the principle >"announce everything, alert nothing." Is that a reasonable approach or >not? Not. The trouble with these PEs [*giggle*] pseudo-explanations is they are of necessity incomplete, and that makes them dangerous. >On further thought, perhaps the announcement should always start with N >or A (natural or artificial), and f or n (forcing or non-forcing) and >then the brief indicator. Of course you could make the rules for >exactly what the announcement should be a whole lot more complex if you >wish, but I think it makes more sense to keep them simple. In >practice, standard announcements will evolve for standard auctions. >If the overriding principle is that non-disclosers suffer adjustments, >I don't think there will be much difficulty with compliance. Let's not worry about forcing people to do things, let's worry about how helpful it is. You are suggesting that incomplete explanations at every call would replace alerts. This makes the game a bore - who on earth wants to explain everything - and gets rid of the principle of finding out the things you really need to know. It will not be playable. -- 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 Wed Nov 4 16:54:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:54:24 +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 QAA25206 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:54:19 +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 QAA02314 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:58:17 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:58:17 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981104190500.1ebfd5fc@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 (bridge-laws) From: Mark Abraham Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At that point in time, it simply become a matter of trying to determine >whether there are any potential alert systems that justify the >inconvenience that they introduce. One would naturally have to differentiate between online tournament play and casual online tables. For tournament play I think that a self-alert procedure, such as available on OKbridge, should be required to be used and full information provided. (OKbridge allows a message to be transmitted with the bid that goes only to one's opponents, and also a aelf-alert that is only visible to the opponents. Further communication can take place privately to one opponent, or to both opponents as need be) If this places a burden on the side to do some typing then so be it. They are playing the methods they chose. In a face-to-face tournament they would have to do some talking if an opponent wanted to know some details about an unusual opening. In online bridge the time delay in getting the bid, typing a request for more information and then receiving the reply, and then acting on it is often excessive. However both opponents can receive an identical explanation that should be in need of little clarification, at the time of the bid. For those who dislike typing, there are tools such as OKscript (one of many so-called "scripting tools") that can automate giving these messages at the cost only of clicking a button. Trying to play a complex system online without such a tool is prohibitively slow. To play a relatively complex system online without even giving self-alerts will also be too slow, if the opponents are wanting to get the information to which they should be entitled. For casual online play, the introduction of "alert regulations" seems a little fatuous... those who would not have disclosed much/at all before the introduction are unlikely to change when there is no penalty for that failure to disclose. Those who don't disclose will simply find it harder and harder to find opponents willing to play against them. I don't see the value of regulation without direct enforcement - it might set a standard for people to use, but those who would abuse will still abuse. There is the point (already discussed) that any such alert regulations will run afoul of international differences. I agree that adopting (say) the ACBL regulations is not a solution. Firstly, those that play online to avoid perceived over-regulation will be annoyed further, and secondly that majority(?) who need to know and remember two sets of alert regulations will not view the introduction of the second set favourably. Let those, desperate enough to cheat online, cheat... time will catch up to them when no-one chooses to play with them. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 17:19:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:19:44 +1100 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 RAA25253 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:19:39 +1100 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 WAA13440 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:23:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811040623.WAA13440@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:20:41 -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 Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > I wonder why we speak about bridge teaching on this list Or cats? Actually, I believe that many TDs are also bridge teachers, so the subject is not too far afield. Maybe there should be a separate mailing list or newsgroup for bridge teachers, but I don't know of one. Does anyone? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Pontis nil a me alienum puto From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 17:49:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:49:17 +1100 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 RAA25404 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:49:10 +1100 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 WAA16565 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:52:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811040652.WAA16565@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: L79B Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:50:01 -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 David Burn wrote > > Grattan > > I have not been following the thread on L79B closely, but I was > prompted to look up the Law, and having done so, I do not understand > it. The whole of L79 appears to me to be flawed to the point of being > nonsensical. > > L79A - The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four > hands have been returned to the board. > Well, you and I could agree upon it before taking our cards out of the > board. Unless the deal is passed out, in which case L79 is unlikely to > operate, then the number of tricks won will be 13, and I will accept > any bet at any odds that it will not. Should be "number of tricks won by each side," right, for the literal-minded. > > L79B - No increase in score need be granted unless... > > Strictly speaking, no "increase in score" is ever possible, since > there is no such thing as "the score" on any given deal. Rather, there > are two scores which always sum to zero, such as NS +620, EW -620. A > change in respect of the number of tricks won by the declaring side > will neither increase nor decrease "the score". Should be "increase in a side's score," I suppose, which includes decreasing the magnitude of a negative score. > L79C - the word "expiration" means "the act of breathing out". It is > not a synonym for "expiry". > As long as we're nitpicking, the two primary meanings of "expiration" in my most-used dictionary are the same as those for expiry. The act of breathing out is number 3. In my humongous dictionary, the act of breathing out is the number 2 meaning under "expiration," and the number 1 meaning of "expiry" is "expiration of breath"! Apparently they are indeed synonymous. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 4 21:59:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:59:45 +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 VAA27901 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:59:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zb0ii-00003V-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:03:33 +0000 Message-ID: <+zGW9bAQC9P2EwM4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:57:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Anton has left the building...? References: <3.0.32.19981104133012.009776b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981104133012.009776b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >P.S. I don't usually cut most subscribers this much slack, but Anton does >appear to be a reasonably central person to this list :-) Ton has a recurring problem with his computer people at work. When his mailbox gets full it starts bouncing emails. It always gets full if he is off work for a few days, for example. He has told his computer people that he needs more disk space to which they replied "No, you don't" or some such! -- 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 Nov 5 00:05:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:05:12 +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 AAA28656 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:05:04 +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 HAA20221; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:20:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981104080710.007b6d30@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:07:10 -0500 To: Mark Abraham , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19981104190500.1ebfd5fc@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:58 PM 11/4/98 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: >If this places a burden on the side to do some typing then so be it. They >are playing the methods they chose. In a face-to-face tournament they would >have to do some talking if an opponent wanted to know some details about an >unusual opening. But, some are suggesting that every bid be accompanied by an explanation (if only a short one). That does not place a burben on those who wish to play "unusual" methods, but rather on everyone. (Not bad, perhaps.) Remember also, that what is unusual to you might be normal to me. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 06:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 06:07:11 +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 GAA03453 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 06:06:59 +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; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:10:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3640A759.CD09D861@home.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 11:13:29 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: blml Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, and EBU alert procedures References: <01BE01CD.524F3A40@har-pa1-18.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > 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 I repeat - self-alerts *with a super-brief explanation* are not time-consuming and virtually eliminates further questions. It would of course be possible to exclude *responses* to conventions such as Stayman/BW from alerts, if the convention itself has been alerted, but what *must* be avoided at all cost is *any* exception based on concepts such as "unexpected meaning", "unusual" etc, that mean diferent things to different people not only in different parts of the world but within the same NCBO. I've always felt that *simplicity* in the alert-procedure should be a priority consideration, not just something which is desirable. This is even more valid in the on-line context, where it seems obvious to use something closer to WBF methods than those of any NCBO. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 06:53:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 06:53:27 +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 GAA03669 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 06:53:20 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA10628; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:56:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.83) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010590; Wed Nov 4 13:56:09 1998 Received: by har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0803.31423820@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:55:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0803.31423820@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'David Burn'" , Grattan Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: L79B Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:45:36 -0500 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually expiration, referring to the conclusion of something that is timed, is the normal word in American English. Expiry is considered rather affected and a bit archaic. While I seldom argue for the superiority of a derivative, dialectical form of the language, I must at least note that common usage does grant some measure of legitimacy to the style. To attempt to tell the majority of educated English-speaking people that they are wrong because they deviate from your standard appears to be little more than effete pedantry. At the expiration of the correction period, we are going out to quaff a few. If you choose to interpret that as meaning our heavy breathing will cease, hopefully there will still be some left in the cask when you accept that we have left "irregardless" of expiry. (No, I don't really accept that bit of Brooklynese as "legit" but everyone knows what is meant.) Cheers, Craig ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] L79C - the word "expiration" means "the act of breathing out". It is not a synonym for "expiry". From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 07:35:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 07:35:34 +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 HAA03857 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 07:35:27 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h47.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA16286; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:39:22 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36416463.E9A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:40:03 -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: L79b 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:) I'm rather sick and tired of my constant agreeing with D.Burn - but he is right once more about rather unclear wording. Then - several remarks. Quotes are written in quotation marks. David Stevenson wrote: "Then running Swiss Pairs I have had experience from the same tournament of two cases: one of them was at Table 1 [i.e. the leading two pairs were playing each other] with one round to go. Two highly ethical pairs had played each other, and dummy had scored a board on the Table Score card as 5D* making: his partner [Declarer] and both defenders had put 5D*-1 on their personal score cards. The defence had signed the Table Score card at the end of the match. As a result of that match they were now clear favourites to win the match and their opponents mathematically could no longer do so. When they received their slips for checking the during the next match the "error" was discovered. Should I have allowed a change in the score? I did not. I consider that the Law is designed for exactly this position. If the lawmakers wish to have a Law for this event then it is not up to me as a TD not to follow their dictates. [I was pleased that this pair won anyway, and since they were popular I got nagged by about twenty people at the end of the event!] In the other occasion it concerned an overtrick at table 54 out of 55, i.e. players who could not possibly win the event. There was no possibility of such a decision favouring one side only: the other side would lose by it as much as they gained. Thus I allowed the change." If allowed period was over - then it was breach of the Laws. Such different treating of players with breaching the Laws is possible (for my opinion) at club level - and absolutely inadmissible at championships or international contests: equal rights and equal conditions of every participant are obligated for any sport. And never mind table number at all. Otherwise - who will decide where is this boundary... I am rather surprised that there were no mention about rank of contest where DWS made his ruling. " I believe that until the law makers see fit to change this Law we must apply it when it is suitable to do so. Now that the wording has changed to make it discretionary I believe that the only time no increase in score is to be given is when there is clear benefit to the side that would get the increase, while there is no real disadvantage to their opponents. In other situations I allow an increase in score." Yes - but I guess that only within allowed period. We may not agree with the law - but while it is not changed no TD has an authority to breach it - even with the best intentions. Claude DADOUN wrote: "David Stevenson's comment on L79b is complete (like always) I am still sceptic on the way the word easy is use. My guess (and my experience?) for this kind of situation is that many TDs will make it easy by just agree with the pairs. in which case nobody will appeal the decision. There is no many cases where TD can decide the winner of a tournament and here it is one I am afraid than some inexperience TD will never refuse to change the score if a VIP is involve." Sorry - but this underlines once more the necessarity of the field protecting:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 08:00:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:00:49 +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 IAA03974 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:00:43 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA26694; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:04:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.83) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026556; Wed Nov 4 15:03:25 1998 Received: by har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE080C.7BA82740@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:02:12 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE080C.7BA82740@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws'" , "'Richard Willey'" Subject: RE: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:59:30 -0500 Encoding: 55 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It may also be a good way to drive some newer players from the game by making it bor-r-r-ring. Attempting to learn too many conventions too soon may not be the fastest path to becoming a good player...but it may be what many people need to stay interested and stay around. Novices will play badly no matter what...let's make sure they have fun while they are learning so they will be bitten by the bug that keeps all of us in the game. After all, we're not in it for the money, and there isn't much glory, so we must be playing for challange and fun. Make new players be rigid, by the numbers, and fearful of error and I'll bet they can find something more interesting to do with their time. Take the Edith McMullen approach...give the novice something to ENJOY first. If he stays with the game awhile, he will improve. If he quits, burdened by the dullness, drabness and totalitatian aspects of a rigid regimen, we will also improve...but not at bridge. While I don't agree fully with every point Richard is making, I want to thank him for opening up some interesting areas of thought and discussion. Using a message tag rather than a simple binary alert message does offer some possibilities. I wonder though if a binary request for information such as Fred G. has designed into the latest version of the zone might not be more practical. Then you only give information when the opponent wants to hear it...and always give it when he wants it, without UI to your partner from overhearing, or to his who is unaware he asked. Craig ---------- From: Richard Willey[SMTP:REW@azure-tech.com] ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:41 PM To: Richard Willey Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a >> The first is what material should be taught. >> I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that >> developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is >> worth considering. >It is with "arguments" of this nature that countries like North Korea >and Cuba "justify" their political systems. Indeed. Its also how many Universities like Columbia or the University of Chicago justify their "core" curriculum. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 09:07:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:07:27 +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 JAA04318 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:07:21 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id RAA00617 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:11:13 -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-1998Nov04.165400.1189.286907; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:11:51 -0400 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Nov04.165400.1189.286907@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, 04 Nov 1998 17:11:51 -0400 Subject: RE: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I wonder though if a binary request for information such >as Fred G. has designed into the latest version of the >zone might not be more practical. Then you only give >information when the opponent wants to hear it...and >always give it when he wants it, without UI to your partner >from overhearing, or to his who is unaware he asked. The problem with this approach is, of course, that unless a player knows whether or not he should ask about a bid, he won't know whether or not to ask about a bid. One possible avenue to explore is whether or not a pre-alert of basic methods might be able to convey enough information to allow the opponents to ask the "right" questions. This might be the best compromise. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 09:09:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:09:36 +1100 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 JAA04345 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:09:30 +1100 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 OAA04982; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:12:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811042212.OAA04982@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , "'bridge-laws'" , "'Richard Willey'" Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:09:01 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > > It may also be a good way to drive some newer players from the game by > making it bor-r-r-ring. Attempting to learn too many conventions too soon > may not be the fastest path to becoming a good player...but it may be what > many people need to stay interested and stay around. I learned bridge in college, when the only conventions were takeout doubles and Blackwood. We found the game so exciting that we cut entirely too many classes to play bridge out on the lawn. That was where I executed my first double squeeze, and actually knew what I was doing, thanks to Goren's *The Standard Book of Play*. What a thrill! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 11:04:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:04:08 +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 LAA05009 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:04:04 +1100 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p50-m2-pm4.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.104.114]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23286 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:07:24 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 13:02:07 +1300 From: wayne burrows X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Procedural Penalties Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow correct procedure. Three cases that come to mind have been: A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. A different line of play would have allowed 3C to make. The director adjusted the score to 3C Dbl making. The result was appealed and the appellants successfully argued that damage was not caused by the irregularity and the table result was returned. The second case occurred at the NZ Pairs championship when a player failed to wait the required 10sec after a stop card had been issued. The auction developed. 2H P* 3H P P 3S P P P * fast pass (no ten second wait) The opponents argued that the fast pass conveyed unauthorized information and that partner should have raised to 4S. The director agreed and adjusted the score to 4S -1. On appeal the committee restored the result to the table score. The third case a pair were playing different methods on these two auctions: (1Suit) 1NT Strong balanced and (1Suit) P (1NewSuit) 1NT two-suited takeout The second auction occurred but the player mis-bid with a strong balanced hand. Reference to the second sequence was not recorded on the system card. Again the director adjusted the score. The pair appealed and convinced the committee that this was there method and that this was a misbid - the table result was restored. In all three cases the committee after restoring the table result imposed a procedural penalty on the appellants. My question is assuming that the committees decisions were correct in all other regards (perhaps not necessarily true) does the committee (or the director) have the power to award a procedural penalty when the table result is allowed to stand? Law 90B7 seems to suggest that errors in procedure that require an adjusted score for any contestent are subject to penalty. Law 90B does say that the offences subject to penalty are not limited to these but to my mind the fact that this much detail is given in 90B7 suggests that one would not ordinarily expect a penalty if there is no adjustment in score required. Perhaps a penalty would be warranted for persistent failure to comply with correct procedure but there is no suggestion of this in any of these cases. The reality is that many players fail to follow correct procedure without any penalty. There are lots of incidences of failures to alert, incorrect use of a stop card, incomplete convention card. It seems to me to be a bit harsh to penalize these incidents just because someone complained and that complaint was found to be without merit. Thanks Wayne Burrows The only law that I can find that relates From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 11:56:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:56:46 +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 LAA05303 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:56:40 +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 UAA25997 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA25054 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:00:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:00:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811050100.UAA25054@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: wayne burrows > To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for > appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow > correct procedure. We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority granted by L90A. I don't think either side convinced the other, but at any rate, I don't think one can say that the Laws clearly forbid such penalties. Whether they are wise or not is another issue. (David Stevenson and I both think they are wise in the correct circumstances, for whatever that might be worth.) > A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been > alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. Correct procedure (evidently) is to alert, so failing to alert is a violation. If you are in the "give PP" camp, this violation is eligible for one. > The second case occurred at the NZ Pairs championship when a player > failed to wait the required 10sec after a stop card had been issued. Again a violation of correct procedure, so eligible for penalty if you are in the "give PP" group. > The pair appealed > and convinced the committee that this was there method and that this was > a misbid - the table result was restored. Here there was no violation of procedure. You are allowed to bid -- or misbid! -- anything you want. Perhaps the AC thought the player was paying too little attention to the game (L74B1), but otherwise I cannot imagine why a PP should be given. > The reality is that many players fail to follow correct procedure > without any penalty. There are lots of incidences of failures to alert, > incorrect use of a stop card, incomplete convention card. It seems to > me to be a bit harsh to penalize these incidents just because someone > complained and that complaint was found to be without merit. There are several different issues all mixed together here. If violations are frequent, one might ask whether there ought to be automatic penalties. Of course there is no way of issuing a penalty if no one complains. The last clause is dubious indeed. PP's can be issued even if a complaint has merit; failing to wait the required 10 s after a skip bid is an obvious candidate. If the quick pass causes damage, you adjust the score, but you might well give a PP too for such a flagrant violation, at least in a high level event. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 13:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:16:34 +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 NAA05716 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:16:27 +1100 Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp180-2.mosquitonet.com [207.149.68.180]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA16790 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:20:36 -0900 Message-ID: <36410C3D.87CE6B@mosquitonet.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:23:57 -0900 From: Gordon Bower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Ancient history and SS Finland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Many of us, myself included, took part in Herman's _SS Finland Challenge_ this past weekend, in honour of the invention (or modification into more recognisable form) of contract bridge in October 1925. It is perhaps worth asking: what exactly was it that was invented in 1925? Vanderbilt and company did not start from scratch in creating their variant of auction bridge. This last fall I was given a copy of _The Official Rules of Card Games: Hoyle up-to-date_, 28th edition, dating to 1924. And on page 36 of the 1924 Hoyle, we find the following: CONTRACT BRIDGE This is a recent variation in the game of auction bridge which differs from the parent game only in the scoring, all the preliminaries of cutting for partners, seats and deal, being as usual. The scoring is governed by the following rules: The score below the line, toward game, is limited by the amount of the final bid, or contract, either at its normal value, or doubled value, if doubled. All extra tricks are scored in the honor column at 10 points each, or 20 if doubled, regardless of the declaration. There is also the usual bonus of 50 for fulfilling a doubled contract, 100 if redoubled. Example: the declaration is three spades, and the declarer makes five odd. He scores 27 below and 20 above. There is no score for honors less than four in one hand, but there is a bonus of 50 for little slam, 100 for grand slam. If a little slam is bid and made it is worth 250, and a grand slam bid and made is worth 500. The partners winning the first or second game add 100 points immediately. For winning the rubber game the add 300, so that a rubber won in two straight games is worth 400; if it takes two out of three to win it, 300 only. If the declarer fails to make his contract, the opponents score 50 for the first trick by which he fails; 100 for the second trick; and 150 for the third and any further, so that if he was set three tricks they would score 300. If they had doubled, these amounts would be doubled. The revoke penalty is two tricks, to be taken from the side in error and transferred to the side not in error. These may help to fulfil a contract, but carry no bonus if the contract was doubled. The penalty is never retroactive, and tricks won previously to the revoke cannot be taken, as they are obviously not affected by the error. The average rubber in this game will be found to run to a little more than double the figures of the ordinary rubber at auction, and allowance for that must be made for in arranging the stakes. [End of quoted section] A quick refresher on Auction scoring as it stood in 1924-- Trick scores: 6 for clubs, 7 diamonds, 8 hearts, 9 spades, 10 NT; 30 below the line for game. All tricks taken counted below the line. Honours were given out rather freely: a bonus equivalent to two tricks (12-20 points) for three honours between two hands, up to ten tricks (60-100) for all honours in one hand. Rubber bonus was 250, bonus for making doubled/redoubled contracts was 50/100, plus 50/100 per overtrick. So --- apparently vulnerability was the only completely new idea of 1925. Requiring tricks to be bid to count below the line, adding more penalties for multiple undertricks, making 2- and 3-game rubbers worth different amounts, and the giving of large slam bonuses were already known in some form by 1924. An amusing bit of history, I thought. Gordon Bower Penalties for being set are 50 per trick, 100 if doubled; From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 21:50:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:50:43 +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 VAA07524 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:50:37 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-31.uunet.be [194.7.13.31]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23931 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:54:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3640CFBC.7FB2FF98@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:05:48 +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: L79b References: <36416463.E9A@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: > > > In the other occasion it concerned an overtrick at table 54 out of 55, > i.e. players who could not possibly win the event. There was no > possibility of such a decision favouring one side only: the other side > would lose by it as much as they gained. Thus I allowed the change." > > If allowed period was over - then it was breach of the Laws. > Such different treating of players with breaching the Laws > is possible (for my opinion) at club level - and absolutely > inadmissible at championships or international contests: > equal rights and equal conditions of every participant are > obligated for any sport. And never mind table number at all. > Otherwise - who will decide where is this boundary... I am > rather surprised that there were no mention about rank > of contest where DWS made his ruling. > But the Lawmakers have precisely put this intention in the Laws. Formerly, no correction was allowed; and this had good reasons - the table 1 case is one of them. But then the table 54 guy is mad. Why doesn't he get his better score. So the Law was changed. Now the Table 54 guy can get his change, and I feel David was correct in letting him have it. But the Law was not changed to the extent that the director MUST allow the change. The only reason why this change was not made is that the Lawmakers still don't trust potential winners from getting LOLs giving them some extra tricks. If the change is not mandatory in the Laws, then surely David was correct in not allowing the change for table 1. So it is not David's ruling which is "unfair" and different between tables; it is the Laws and I don't think the Lawmakers have done a bad job. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 5 22:18:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:11 +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 WAA07641 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:17:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbNUA-0007dH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:21:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:22:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <01BE0803.31423820@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE0803.31423820@har-pa2-19.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Actually expiration, referring to the conclusion of something that is >timed, is the normal word in American English. Expiry is considered rather >affected and a bit archaic. While I seldom argue for the superiority of a >derivative, dialectical form of the language, I must at least note that >common usage does grant some measure of legitimacy to the style. To attempt >to tell the majority of educated English-speaking people that they are >wrong because they deviate from your standard appears to be little more >than effete pedantry. Can I get this clear please? Are you saying that "the majority of educated English-speaking people" are American? I would just like to be sure I have not misread this. -- 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 Nov 5 22:18:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:08 +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 WAA07642 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:17:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbNUA-0007dI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:21:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:26:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79b References: <36416463.E9A@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <36416463.E9A@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold wrote: > If allowed period was over - then it was breach of the Laws. > Such different treating of players with breaching the Laws > is possible (for my opinion) at club level - and absolutely > inadmissible at championships or international contests: > equal rights and equal conditions of every participant are > obligated for any sport. And never mind table number at all. > Otherwise - who will decide where is this boundary... I am > rather surprised that there were no mention about rank > of contest where DWS made his ruling. Because it is irrelevant. L79B makes no mention of the level of contest. I am following the Law as written. I am applying equal rights and equal conditions: you are not. >" I believe that until the law makers see fit to change this Law we must >apply it when it is suitable to do so. Now that the wording has changed >to make it discretionary I believe that the only time no increase in >score is to be given is when there is clear benefit to the side that >would get the increase, while there is no real disadvantage to their >opponents. In other situations I allow an increase in score." > > Yes - but I guess that only within allowed period. We may > not agree with the law - but while it is not changed no TD > has an authority to breach it - even with the best intentions. Just read the Law Vitold: the wording is discretionary. I did not breach it by applying discretion. -- 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 Nov 5 22:18:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:17 +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 WAA07657 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:09 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbNUA-0007dG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:21:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:20:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a References: <1998Nov04.165400.1189.286907@azure-tech.com> In-Reply-To: <1998Nov04.165400.1189.286907@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > >>I wonder though if a binary request for information such >>as Fred G. has designed into the latest version of the >>zone might not be more practical. Then you only give >>information when the opponent wants to hear it...and >>always give it when he wants it, without UI to your partner >>from overhearing, or to his who is unaware he asked. > >The problem with this approach is, of course, that unless a player knows >whether or not he should ask about a bid, he won't know whether or not to >ask about a bid. One possible avenue to explore is whether or not a >pre-alert of basic methods might be able to convey enough information to >allow the opponents to ask the "right" questions. This might be the best >compromise. What level of player are you talking about? I have enough difficulty remembering my system, without remembering other people's. Yes, I can play this game, just a little. You think the average player will find it any easier? Do you know why we have CCs and alerts? Because normal players find it is an easy method of being reminded to ask at the sort of frequency they need, and allowing some information to be instantly available in a written form, *if* the oppo wants to take a look. Now what this thread has singularly failed to do is to provide any suggestions that improve on this in any way. Pre-alerts tax the memory and are thus not conducive to enjoyment. PEs are just a joke [partial explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know whether they want to know it or not] which will drive people away from the game because they will tend to bore people. So I have a suggestion: lets stick to basic alerting and CCs until someone comes up with something that is [a] better and [b] ***makes the game more enjoyable***. -- 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 Nov 5 22:18:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:18 +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 WAA07656 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:18:09 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbNUA-0007dK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:21:57 +0000 Message-ID: <++0e+aANHQQ2EwFz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:39:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne burrows wrote: >To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >correct procedure. I think this is a matter for local discussion. So long as the approach is consistent then there is nothing wrong. [s] >My question is assuming that the committees decisions were correct in >all other regards (perhaps not necessarily true) does the committee (or >the director) have the power to award a procedural penalty when the >table result is allowed to stand? Absolutely yes without any question. LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. The examples you give were all of ones that inconvenienced other contestants. The first two certainly violated correct procedure as well, and the third is arguable. These are completely standard cases where a TD has an absolute right to issue any PP he sees fit. Whether he should was not your question: again I believe the basic local approach should be consistent. LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 3. Adjudication of Appeals In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of Law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling. This gives the AC the right to issue PPs under L90. >The reality is that many players fail to follow correct procedure >without any penalty. There are lots of incidences of failures to alert, >incorrect use of a stop card, incomplete convention card. It seems to >me to be a bit harsh to penalize these incidents just because someone >complained and that complaint was found to be without merit. The ones where there was a complaint are the ones that inconvenienced other contestants. Anyway, it may be right not to issue PPs as fines - we don't issue very many in England/Wales - but TDs and ACs have the right. -- 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 Nov 5 23:02:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:02:54 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f179.hotmail.com [207.82.251.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA07912 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:02:49 +1100 Received: (qmail 4447 invoked by uid 0); 5 Nov 1998 12:06:19 -0000 Message-ID: <19981105120619.4446.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Nov 1998 04:06:18 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: L79B MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 04:06:18 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Actually expiration, referring to the conclusion of something that is >timed, is the normal word in American English. Expiry is considered rather >affected and a bit archaic. While I seldom argue for the superiority of a >derivative, dialectical form of the language, I must at least note that >common usage does grant some measure of legitimacy to the style. To attempt >to tell the majority of educated English-speaking people that they are >wrong because they deviate from your standard appears to be little more >than effete pedantry. > At the expiration of the correction period, we are going out to quaff >a few. If you choose to interpret that as meaning our heavy breathing will >cease, hopefully there will still be some left in the cask when you accept >that we have left "irregardless" of expiry. (No, I don't really accept that >bit of Brooklynese as "legit" but everyone knows what is meant.) > >Cheers, > >Craig >---------- >From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] > >L79C - the word "expiration" means "the act of breathing out". It is >not a synonym for "expiry". > > Little more than 'effete pedantry'? How little more, exactly? And is there a list somewhere of other types of pedantry, such as 'macho pedantry', 'suave pedantry' and 'Welsh pedantry'? :) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 00:07:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:07:33 +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 AAA08212 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:07:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-184.uunet.be [194.7.14.184]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA04165 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:18:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36418CCE.26253C94@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:32:30 +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: Procedural Penalties References: <199811050100.UAA25054@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: wayne burrows > > To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for > > appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow > > correct procedure. > > We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as > examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such > penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad > permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority > granted by L90A. > > I don't think either side convinced the other, but at any rate, I don't > think one can say that the Laws clearly forbid such penalties. Whether > they are wise or not is another issue. (David Stevenson and I both > think they are wise in the correct circumstances, for whatever that > might be worth.) > > > A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been > > alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. > > Correct procedure (evidently) is to alert, so failing to alert is a > violation. If you are in the "give PP" camp, this violation is > eligible for one. > Wayne actually asks three questions : - are these penalties allowed : I think we have established they are! - are these penalties correct : If you are in the "give PP" camp, they are, and should be given consistently. - is it correct for AC to award these penalties if the TD did not ? That is an important question IMO. Surely it cannot be right for an AC to give a penalty for a minor infraction, just to pleas someone who complains, and they find that the infraction did not cause damage. I frequently see this happen, and I don't like it. If the AC chooses to award PP's for such cases, it should have told the TD to do so. At least then, all similar cases will have been punished alike, not just those that reach the AC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 00:13:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:13:41 +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 AAA09682 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:13:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbPHn-0003SN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: <7HoPwtA+PZQ2EwW6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:03:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ancient history and SS Finland References: <36410C3D.87CE6B@mosquitonet.com> In-Reply-To: <36410C3D.87CE6B@mosquitonet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >A quick refresher on Auction scoring as it stood in 1924-- >Trick scores: 6 for clubs, 7 diamonds, 8 hearts, 9 spades, 10 NT; 30 >below the line for game. All tricks taken counted below the line. >Honours were given out rather freely: a bonus equivalent to two tricks >(12-20 points) for three honours between two hands, up to ten tricks >(60-100) for all honours in one hand. Rubber bonus was 250, bonus for >making doubled/redoubled contracts was 50/100, plus 50/100 per >overtrick. > >So --- apparently vulnerability was the only completely new idea of >1925. Requiring tricks to be bid to count below the line, adding more >penalties for multiple undertricks, making 2- and 3-game rubbers worth >different amounts, and the giving of large slam bonuses were already >known in some form by 1924. The really important new idea IMO is that overtricks went above the line: that is what made Contract so enormously different. Just consider 1H P P P. If you make ten tricks you make game: if you make 12 tricks, you make slam, and so on. Very boring. With not much competitive bidding at that time many contracts will have been played at the one- level. While you say >Requiring tricks to be bid to count below the line, ... were already >known in some form by 1924. the scoring table you give shows it did not happen. Also, I was of the opinion that slam bonuses came in with Contract, despite what you say: again, your scoring table supports me. -- 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 Nov 6 02:07:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:07:59 +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 CAA11476 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:07:52 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11770 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:11:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:11:51 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Do you know why we have CCs and alerts? Because normal players find > it is an easy method of being reminded to ask at the sort of frequency > they need, and allowing some information to be instantly available in a > written form, *if* the oppo wants to take a look. In my experience, in ACBLand opponents rarely look. They ask. > > Now what this thread has singularly failed to do is to provide any > suggestions that improve on this in any way. Pre-alerts tax the memory > and are thus not conducive to enjoyment. PEs are just a joke [partial > explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know > whether they want to know it or not] which will drive people away from > the game because they will tend to bore people. > The advantage of pre-alerts is that they can be written. Then they are a sort of adjunct to the convention card, and opponents have a cue of this extra "thing" that reminds them they want to ask or look. Even if the pre-alert is spoken, it's useful. The clue is merely to remember that one exists. Then you can increase the frequency of asking about alerts with little fear of unauthorised information. My experience with pre-alerts: We use a 3x5 inch (7.5x12.5cm) card with information on our opening bids (a canape style with strange 2-bids). Opponents now know they are facing something strange. They ask far more often, whether interested or not. We expect it of them and things usually progress smoothly. Despite all the extra time spent in discussion of our system, we don't get late plays or the hovering director. > So I have a suggestion: lets stick to basic alerting and CCs until > someone comes up with something that is [a] better and [b] ***makes the > game more enjoyable***. But I think this all started as an offshoot of "how should online bridge be different". Clearly there are things that might be done differently there. The ACBL system (CC+Alert) works less than perfectly but fairly well. I don't think any system will work to keep everybody happy. -- 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 Fri Nov 6 02:16:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:16:19 +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 CAA11530 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:16:12 +1100 Received: from [195.99.43.152] [195.99.43.152] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zbRBI-0002g0-00; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:18:44 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: L79B Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:20:30 +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 Craig Senior wrote: Actually expiration, referring to the conclusion of something that is=20 timed, is the normal word in American English. Expiry is considered rather=20 affected and a bit archaic. While I seldom argue for the superiority of a=20 derivative, dialectical form of the language, I must at least note that = common usage does grant some measure of legitimacy to the style. To attempt = to tell the majority of educated English-speaking people that they are = wrong because they deviate from your standard appears to be little more = than effete pedantry. I do not have a standard, but I have a few works of reference which are = widely accepted as authoritative. Perhaps the matter should be the subject = of an official inquiration. Curiously, Chambers gives "expiration" and annotates it as obsolete, which = appears to be the reverse of what American dictionaries do. But if = "expiration" is the "normal word in American English", then "expiration" it = shall be. Unless, of course, the Laws Commission could by some wild chance = be persuaded to use the word "end". But that might set a dangerous = precedent. After all, if the Laws were both intelligible and unambiguous, = what would we all do of an evening? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 02:17:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:17:26 +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 CAA11549 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:17:20 +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 KAA08553 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA25388 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:21:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:21:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811051521.KAA25388@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: online alert systems X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I have changed the thread name again; it was "ACBL alerts," which is not what we are discussing at all!] > From: David Stevenson > PEs are just a joke [partial > explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know > whether they want to know it or not] Could you expand just a bit on why announcements are worse than alerts? Of course they tell nowhere near 1/3 of the information that would be available if one were to ask a question, but they tell many times more than an alert. (That's why I prefer the term "announcement." It is not intended to be as extensive as "partial explanation" might suggest, just a few bits more than a simple alert.) Announcements seem to be working well here in the States in the limited cases in which they are used. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 07:29:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:29:15 +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 HAA13679 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:29:05 +1100 Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp134.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.134]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16151 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:33:25 -0900 Message-ID: <36420C61.A399D6E@mosquitonet.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:36:49 -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: Ancient history and SS Finland References: <36410C3D.87CE6B@mosquitonet.com> <7HoPwtA+PZQ2EwW6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > The really important new idea IMO is that overtricks went above the > line: that is what made Contract so enormously different. Just consider > 1H P P P. If you make ten tricks you make game: if you make 12 tricks, > you make slam, and so on. Very boring. With not much competitive > bidding at that time many contracts will have been played at the one- > level. > > While you say > >Requiring tricks to be bid to count below the line, ... were already > >known in some form by 1924. > the scoring table you give shows it did not happen. > > Also, I was of the opinion that slam bonuses came in with Contract, > despite what you say: again, your scoring table supports me. I agree that these are two much more important changes than the addition of vulnerability, and that these are what made Contract so different. My point was that something called Contract Bridge, which gave slam bonuses and placed overtricks above the line, was already well enough known in 1924 to merit a place in a "Hoyle" -- despite the conventional wisdom that "Contract was invented by H.S. Vanderbilt in 1925". The origin of Contract appears to be a more gradual process, and less attributable to one person, than is commonly believed. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 10:15:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:15:10 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-22.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA14923 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:14:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbYfi-0003vs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:18:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:31:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811050100.UAA25054@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36418CCE.26253C94@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36418CCE.26253C94@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: wayne burrows >> > To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >> > appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >> > correct procedure. >> >> We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as >> examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such >> penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad >> permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority >> granted by L90A. >> >> I don't think either side convinced the other, but at any rate, I don't >> think one can say that the Laws clearly forbid such penalties. Whether >> they are wise or not is another issue. (David Stevenson and I both >> think they are wise in the correct circumstances, for whatever that >> might be worth.) >> >> > A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been >> > alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. >> >> Correct procedure (evidently) is to alert, so failing to alert is a >> violation. If you are in the "give PP" camp, this violation is >> eligible for one. >> > >Wayne actually asks three questions : > >- are these penalties allowed : I think we have established they are! >- are these penalties correct : If you are in the "give PP" camp, they >are, and should be given consistently. >- is it correct for AC to award these penalties if the TD did not ? > >That is an important question IMO. Surely it cannot be right for an AC >to give a penalty for a minor infraction, just to pleas someone who >complains, and they find that the infraction did not cause damage. >I frequently see this happen, and I don't like it. > >If the AC chooses to award PP's for such cases, it should have told the >TD to do so. At least then, all similar cases will have been punished >alike, not just those that reach the AC. Well ..... All similar cases? Perhaps the similarity is that they did reach the AC! Anyway, the AC has no right to instruct the TD in his job, so I am sure that Herman's is not the right answer. It could be right, for example, for ACs not to give such penalties if TDs are not - that is reasonable. On the other hand, there is a tendency for Violations of Procedure that really matter to cause more trouble [TD calls, taking to ACs] so perhaps it is reasonable that ACs give fines in such cases. -- 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 Nov 6 10:57:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:57:32 +1100 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 KAA15277 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:57:14 +1100 Received: from freenet5.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 TAA15778 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA16481; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:01:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:01:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811060001.TAA16481@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: online alert systems Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >[I have changed the thread name again; it was "ACBL alerts," which is >not what we are discussing at all!] > >> From: David Stevenson >> PEs are just a joke [partial >> explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know >> whether they want to know it or not] > >Could you expand just a bit on why announcements are worse than >alerts? Of course they tell nowhere near 1/3 of the information that >would be available if one were to ask a question, but they tell many >times more than an alert. (That's why I prefer the term >"announcement." It is not intended to be as extensive as "partial >explanation" might suggest, just a few bits more than a simple alert.) > >Announcements seem to be working well here in the States in the limited >cases in which they are used. > They may be working well in the States, but here in my part of Canada they are not working nearly as well. One of the problems is that many players (dare I say most?) don't know what should be announced, and wind up announcing everything under the sun. You haven't lived until you get called over to a table after one player announced "negative double" and his partner not only says that it is NOT negative past 2S, but that he shouldn't have announced it to start with! :-) Add whether or not 1NT is forcing, semi-forcing or not forcing, or (I swear, this has happened!) Sandwiche 1NT, and a director knows all is not well in his little world... Tony (aka ac342) ps. as for NT range, don't get me started... :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 12:01:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:01:03 +1100 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 MAA15721 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:00:57 +1100 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21443 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:04:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:04:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811060104.UAA11770@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:31:12 +0000) Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Wayne actually asks three questions : >> - are these penalties allowed : I think we have established they are! >> - are these penalties correct : If you are in the "give PP" camp, they >> are, and should be given consistently. >> - is it correct for AC to award these penalties if the TD did not ? >> That is an important question IMO. Surely it cannot be right for an AC >> to give a penalty for a minor infraction, just to pleas someone who >> complains, and they find that the infraction did not cause damage. >> I frequently see this happen, and I don't like it. > All similar cases? Perhaps the similarity is that they did reach the > AC! > Anyway, the AC has no right to instruct the TD in his job, so I am > sure that Herman's is not the right answer. It could be right, for > example, for ACs not to give such penalties if TDs are not - that is > reasonable. > On the other hand, there is a tendency for Violations of Procedure > that really matter to cause more trouble [TD calls, taking to ACs] so > perhaps it is reasonable that ACs give fines in such cases. However, what seems to have happened in the three cases which started the discussion is that the violation of procedure had nothing to do with the case. Had the TD ruled to let the table score stand and the non-offenders appealed, the appeal would have been judged frivolous. In at least some of these cases, there should not be a PP imposed by the AC; the offenders went to committee to correct a director's error, not a judgment call. # A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been # alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. A different line of # play would have allowed 3C to make. The director adjusted the score to # 3C Dbl making. The result was appealed and the appellants successfully # argued that damage was not caused by the irregularity and the table # result was returned. Here, I can't tell what happened. If there is no reason that the failure to alert could have caused the contract to fail, there should be no penalty. # The second case occurred at the NZ Pairs championship when a player # failed to wait the required 10sec after a stop card had been issued. The # auction developed. # 2H P* 3H P # P 3S P P # P # * fast pass (no ten second wait) This could justify a penalty because of the specific violation. I would have called the director as soon as the fast pass was made. If it is not accepted practice to penalize a fast pass, there should be no penalty just because of the appeal. # The opponents argued that the fast pass conveyed unauthorized # information and that partner should have raised to 4S. The director # agreed and adjusted the score to 4S -1. On appeal the committee # restored the result to the table score. The director's argument here may have merit, although it seems unlikely that 4S would be a LA on this auction. # The third case a pair were playing different methods on these two # auctions: # # (1Suit) 1NT Strong balanced # # and # # (1Suit) P (1NewSuit) 1NT two-suited takeout # # The second auction occurred but the player mis-bid with a strong # balanced hand. Reference to the second sequence was not recorded on the # system card. Again the director adjusted the score. The pair appealed # and convinced the committee that this was there method and that this was # a misbid - the table result was restored. There is no case for a penalty here, since there was no infraction. Convention disruption is not an infraction. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 12:02:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:02:40 +1100 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 MAA15736 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:02:34 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA10118 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:06:33 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981106020237.009b0670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 02:02:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: online alert systems In-Reply-To: <199811060001.TAA16481@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:01 05-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>[I have changed the thread name again; it was "ACBL alerts," which is >>not what we are discussing at all!] >> >>> From: David Stevenson >>> PEs are just a joke [partial >>> explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know >>> whether they want to know it or not] >> >>Could you expand just a bit on why announcements are worse than >>alerts? Of course they tell nowhere near 1/3 of the information that >>would be available if one were to ask a question, but they tell many >>times more than an alert. (That's why I prefer the term >>"announcement." It is not intended to be as extensive as "partial >>explanation" might suggest, just a few bits more than a simple alert.) >> >>Announcements seem to be working well here in the States in the limited >>cases in which they are used. >> >They may be working well in the States, but here in my part of Canada >they are not working nearly as well. One of the problems is that >many players (dare I say most?) don't know what should be announced, >and wind up announcing everything under the sun. You haven't lived >until you get called over to a table after one player announced >"negative double" and his partner not only says that it is NOT >negative past 2S, but that he shouldn't have announced it to start >with! :-) >Add whether or not 1NT is forcing, semi-forcing or not forcing, or >(I swear, this has happened!) Sandwiche 1NT, and a director knows all >is not well in his little world... > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. as for NT range, don't get me started... :-) > Well, we have discussed this in length before. Perhaps the Beer fine is still the best solution (although i have broken my leg twice since then). I keep saying that education is the only way to solve the whole discussion about alert/non alert. Usually i tell all my people to alert if they get the impression that opps are not likely to know what your partners bidding means. (if you want to humiliate your opps, alert stayman after 1NT and tell them politely that you can imagine they dont know the convention -btw in holland it is forbidden to alert stayman ::)) I personally think alerts are only useful for people who can handle this matter (usually flight A+ in USA land, here probably regional competitions). For the rest all problems about alerts mostly are scrap. regards and see you in hospital :) anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 12:10:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:10:26 +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 MAA15770 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:10:19 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc4mm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.18.214]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA06664 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:14:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981105201051.006d392c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:10:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 PM 11/5/98 +1300, Wayne wrote: >To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >correct procedure. > I think your concern is well-founded. As Steve points out, the discussion about the latitude granted under L90 has occurred before, without any particularly satisfactory resolution (what else is new). I am unconvinced by the argument that the phrases "violates correct procedure" (L90A) and "but are not limited to" (L90B) confer the unfettered authority that others would like. To extend PP's to cover all possible errors is to completely ignore the nature of the offenses listed in L90B. All of these offenses pertain to the administration of the game. None of them are relevant to the actual play of the hand at the table where the offense occurred. Conspicuous by their absence are references to the every-day, common violations which constitute most of a TD's rulings, such as revokes, xOOT's, and occasions of UI/MI upon which a TD might rule. Why have these most common types of offenses not been included in L90B? Because they are satisfactorily addressed elsewhere. This disagreement has something in common with the dispute over the value of L12C3. David and others read L90 as giving broad authority to a TD (and, derivatively, to an AC) to issue PP's. David has argued that this authority should be exercised "consistently", but of course nothing in the Laws suggests that this is required. If a TD has unlimited discretion to issue PP's under L90, then he may of course choose to do so in ways which favor his friends, or perhaps his more loyal customers. There is no effective accountability for these decisions. Similarly, decisions based on the open-ended and undefined "equity" clause in L12C3 are effectively immunized against criticism, by the lack of any objective criterion. I would like to set forth a hypothesis that relates these two discussions to several others which have occurred. By and large, it is my observation that the ACBL'ers on this list, as a group, are considerably more hostile to any interpretation which broadens the discretionary authority of TD's, AC's, and SO's. As a rule, those from the EBU seem to be more sympathetic to such readings. My hypothesis is that this reflects a cultural difference, in that Americans are generally more distrustful of authority. It was, after all, against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Crown that we rebelled in the first place, and the entire structure of our government is predicated on the notion of limited governmental authority. The resulting inefficiencies can often be maddening when we want to get something done, but in general we would rather make it difficult for government to act. I hate to pick on David, but he does seem to be the most articulate and consistent spokesman for the competing view that the interests of the game are best served when the authorities are free to act within a broad reading of the Laws. Presumably, he trusts that others will rule with justice and wisdom, as I have little doubt he does himself. Shall we call this the Royalist position? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 6 12:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:54:37 +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 MAA16048 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:54:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbbAM-0003OJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:58:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:43:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > >On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Do you know why we have CCs and alerts? Because normal players find >> it is an easy method of being reminded to ask at the sort of frequency >> they need, and allowing some information to be instantly available in a >> written form, *if* the oppo wants to take a look. > >In my experience, in ACBLand opponents rarely look. They ask. >> >> Now what this thread has singularly failed to do is to provide any >> suggestions that improve on this in any way. Pre-alerts tax the memory >> and are thus not conducive to enjoyment. PEs are just a joke [partial >> explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know >> whether they want to know it or not] which will drive people away from >> the game because they will tend to bore people. >> >The advantage of pre-alerts is that they can be written. Then they >are a sort of adjunct to the convention card, and opponents have a cue >of this extra "thing" that reminds them they want to ask or look. Yes, good system. We have designed our CC so that it folds into four pages, like a book. The "front" is the basis of the system, so provides a pre-alert in effect - if people bother to look at it, and they do quite frequently. What I am worrying about is control of OLB, where the pre-alert is lost or forgotten. However, you *have* given me an idea: a permanent "pre-alert". Thus, throughout the session, players have a pre-alert box, and it says something to remind you. >Even if the pre-alert is spoken, it's useful. The clue is merely to >remember that one exists. Then you can increase the frequency of >asking about alerts with little fear of unauthorised information. I do not understand that. Pre-alerted or not, the UI from questions about alerted calls is not really different. Furthermore, it is the fact that the pre-alert is forgotten that is my main objection to it. >> So I have a suggestion: lets stick to basic alerting and CCs until >> someone comes up with something that is [a] better and [b] ***makes the >> game more enjoyable***. > >But I think this all started as an offshoot of "how should online >bridge be different". Clearly there are things that might be done >differently there. The ACBL system (CC+Alert) works less than perfectly >but fairly well. I don't think any system will work to keep everybody >happy. No, I agree, but what I am saying is that pre-alerts and PEs are not going to solve OLB alerting. I was not arguing with ACBL methods, though they do have serious disadvantages, but they have advantages as well, and it is all a question of balance. -- 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 Nov 6 12:54:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:54:43 +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 MAA16047 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:54:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbbAM-0003OI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:58:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 00:36:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: online alert systems References: <199811051521.KAA25388@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811051521.KAA25388@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >[I have changed the thread name again; it was "ACBL alerts," which is >not what we are discussing at all!] > >> From: David Stevenson >> PEs are just a joke [partial >> explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know >> whether they want to know it or not] > >Could you expand just a bit on why announcements are worse than >alerts? Of course they tell nowhere near 1/3 of the information that >would be available if one were to ask a question, but they tell many >times more than an alert. (That's why I prefer the term >"announcement." It is not intended to be as extensive as "partial >explanation" might suggest, just a few bits more than a simple alert.) > >Announcements seem to be working well here in the States in the limited >cases in which they are used. Yes, I agree that they are - but it is that limited area that makes them work. This thread was concerned with the idea that *every* call made online would have an explanation. While it might be OK for 1NT openings and Transfers, it is all the other cases that worry me. Pass <11 HCP 1H 5+ 3D weak Dble Negative Pass No interest 3S natural Pass No interest 4C natural Pass ni 4D cue Pass ni 4S natural Pass ni Pass ni Now, before you pass this one out, do any questions occur to you? Apart from that you are sick of typing No interest? [Yes, I know, scripting, who cares!]. Did you notice the "Negative" double? Does it show four spades? Which suit was agreed by the 4D cue bid, clubs or spades? I think you will find it much more difficult to ask relevant questions than if you just have a few relevant calls alerted. I know announcements are working in NAmerica. But that does not mean that continuous partial explanations will work in OLB. -- 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 Nov 6 14:17:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:17:46 +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 OAA16894 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:17:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zbcSo-0002S4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:21:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:37:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Lille Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I expect you all remember Beate Birr's appeal at Lille after she psyched a 1NT opening. She wrote it up [since there was no official record, unlike *every* other appeal from Lille] and it has appeared in several places, including as an article on RGB. If any of you do not remember the story then it is on my Bridgepage, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm Bobby Wolff wrote a short comment at the time, and another longer comment for the ACBL case book. These also appear at the above address. This matter was discussed at length on RGB and BLML. A suggestion was made that it would be nice to ask Bobby Wolff further questions to try to find out what his position is. I have asked Bobby, and he has agreed to answer some of my questions for publication. If you have questions for Bobby you can put them to me by sending them to . However, I am not going to ask him anything couched in an offensive matter. Whatever you may think of what he did, we will not get a dialogue going by shouting at him. This is the first set of questions and answers. ---------------------------- David Stevenson asked: For a start let us consider the non-offending side. I shall come back to the other side. In the Appeal concerning the psyche of 1NT at Lille, there has been some interest in East's actions. East had eleven HCP, and heard an 11-13 1NT, a double showing 13+ and a redouble showing 8+. East thus knows that someone does not have their bid. Even after partner bid again voluntarily, East did not bid game. 1 Did the AC [Appeals Committee] consider whether East was trying to field his partner's apparent psyche? 2 If not, why not? 3 Whatever North-South have done, the failure to bid game appears to be solely East-West's own fault. Do you not consider their actions subsequent to any infraction rather than consequent? 4 Why did East-West not get their table score in view of the fact that they did not play bridge after the alleged infraction? 5 One possible reason for allowing East-West a better score than they got would be if the AC considered them beginners. Surely this was not the case in a World Championship? ---------------------------- Bobby Wolff replied: Dear David, Quoting Humphrey Bogart's final line from the movie "Casablanca, "This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". l. No, East was obviously not trying to field her partner's psychic. She was in outer space, catapulted by her own incompentence and inexperience, together with the intimidation from her space age opponents. 2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission. To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we need to strive in appeals for the best result possible, not the best possible result. We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious trio of i's: 1. intimidation 2. intentional convention disruption 3. inactive ethics. Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to roll up our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a chance in order to stop them or at least slow them down. We cannot wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not conforming. 3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten 20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not even know it or worse not even care. 4. Giving them their table score would have been a correct judgment, but see above. I might have not thought about it at the time or maybe we wanted to repair their feelings. Either way, Mea Culpa! 5. Surely it was the case in a World Championship and will continue to be, unless some genius finds a better way to stage our events. Return cheers (and from Becky), Bobby PS. Waiting for the next bunch of questions. Thank you for getting involved!!! -- 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 Nov 6 23:23:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:23:28 +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 XAA18678 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:23:23 +1100 Received: from lawlab15 (lawlab15.comlaw.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.20]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA25249 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:27:25 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:27:25 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981106232718.1f4f3df0@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: online alert systems Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Pass <11 HCP >1H 5+ >3D weak >Dble Negative >Pass No interest >3S natural >Pass No interest >4C natural >Pass ni >4D cue >Pass ni >4S natural >Pass ni >Pass ni > > Now, before you pass this one out, do any questions occur to you? >Apart from that you are sick of typing No interest? [Yes, I know, >scripting, who cares!]. > > Did you notice the "Negative" double? Does it show four spades? >Which suit was agreed by the 4D cue bid, clubs or spades? Amusingly, this was my point in a thread some 10 or so months ago in reference to the self-alerting nature of doubles under Australian Bridge Federation Alert Regulations (self-alerted bids are those that of their nature suggest a special agreement, and may not be alerted - currently including all doubles and redoubles, bids of opponents suits, and all calls above 3NT; the regulations then in place have been revised, and self-alerting doubles were retained... ). I understood that under some (European) SOs, some doubles need to be alerted if they are/are not negative/penalty/whatever. My point at the time was that even if the alert indicating a negative double is given, further inquiry is often needed to get a clear understanding of the auction (e.g. In the above example, does X promise 4S? Does X promise both unbid suits? Does X suggest heart tolerance in addition to any other meaning? Does X merely indicate diamond shortage without regard to other shape?) A partial explanation** of a call will always leave some questions in some opponents' minds unanswered, while boring some opponents, and confusing yet others. It is a question of whether expedience in the common cases outweighs the benefits of a purist approach that is suitable to deal with the esoteric cases, while being overkill for the common ones. Giving all the nuances of the "negative" double might be technically appropriate, but most of the time the oppo just wants to know that it's not penalty. **[Note that by "partial explanation" I include the kind of "announcement" scheme we are discussing for OLB, or an inference from the presence or absence of an alert, or from an explanation that received an inadequate one-word answer] As far as OLB goes, I am firmly in favour of proffering explanations of the bids as they are made. There is less tendency for agreements to be left undisclosed, and it saves time when typing-handicapped opponents don't have to wait for ages to find out about your auction. In OLB, for relatively simple agreements like a negative double or a Michaels Cue Bid, I tend to offer a one-word explanation. For complex agreements I give full explanations, and like to receive them too. Of course I am but one bridge player in millions.... In OLB the trade-off between "convenience in alerting & playing" and "overly-burdensome full disclosure in simple cases" is closer to "convenience" than it might be for FTF bridge, by the nature of the medium, the style of game, and the expectations of the players. > I know announcements are working in NAmerica. But that does not mean >that continuous partial explanations will work in OLB. Continuous full explanations will not be given by the majority. Significant numbers of OLB players don't even understand the Alert mechanism (if it exists), or use it in obvious cases (say a Jacoby transfer). Alert regulations are not necessary for casual OLB play (after all, a problem board can be skipped with no score recorded); IMO the players have to police themselves. In online tournament play I would expect some degree of regulation (which bids are expected to be alerted, etc). As far as degree of self-explanation goes, I feel the convenience of the continuous explanation, to the degree judged appropriate by the bidder, outweighs the advantages from expecting continous full explanation, or continuous alerts without explanation. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 00:19:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:19:39 +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 AAA21106 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:19:33 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-225.uunet.be [194.7.13.225]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24158 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:23:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3642DBEA.C721B5EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:22:18 +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: Procedural Penalties References: <199811050100.UAA25054@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36418CCE.26253C94@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > All similar cases? Perhaps the similarity is that they did reach the > AC! > > Anyway, the AC has no right to instruct the TD in his job, so I am > sure that Herman's is not the right answer. It could be right, for > example, for ACs not to give such penalties if TDs are not - that is > reasonable. > Whichever way you put it, AC and TDs are joining in their efforts to create a fair tournament. There must be some form of consensus between CTD, TD and AC as to what level of penalties to give. I don't care which way it goes, but it must be consistent. Far too often, an AC gives a penalty for some offense which has happened 29 times more in the tournament, 20 times without TD being called, and 9 times with TD not giving penalties. Just because nr 30 does reacht the AC, the offenders are penalised ? Can't be right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 00:28:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:28:30 +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 AAA21133 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:28:25 +1100 Received: from lawlab15 (lawlab15.comlaw.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.20]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA01396 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:32:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 00:32:28 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19981107003220.11afa132@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >>Herman De Wael wrote: >>>Steve Willner wrote: >>> > From: wayne burrows >>> > To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >>> > appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >>> > correct procedure. >>> >>> We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as >>> examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such >>> penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad >>> permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority >>> granted by L90A. >>> >>> I don't think either side convinced the other, but at any rate, I don't >>> think one can say that the Laws clearly forbid such penalties. Whether >>> they are wise or not is another issue. (David Stevenson and I both >>> think they are wise in the correct circumstances, for whatever that >>> might be worth.) >>> >>> > A contract of 3C Dbl was beaten by one trick. The double had not been >>> > alerted. It should have been alerted as takeout. >>> >>> Correct procedure (evidently) is to alert, so failing to alert is a >>> violation. If you are in the "give PP" camp, this violation is >>> eligible for one. >>> >> >>Wayne actually asks three questions : >> >>- are these penalties allowed : I think we have established they are! >>- are these penalties correct : If you are in the "give PP" camp, they >>are, and should be given consistently. >>- is it correct for AC to award these penalties if the TD did not ? >> >>That is an important question IMO. Surely it cannot be right for an AC >>to give a penalty for a minor infraction, just to pleas someone who >>complains, and they find that the infraction did not cause damage. >>I frequently see this happen, and I don't like it. >> >>If the AC chooses to award PP's for such cases, it should have told the >>TD to do so. At least then, all similar cases will have been punished >>alike, not just those that reach the AC. > > Well ..... > > All similar cases? Perhaps the similarity is that they did reach the >AC! > > Anyway, the AC has no right to instruct the TD in his job, so I am >sure that Herman's is not the right answer. It could be right, for >example, for ACs not to give such penalties if TDs are not - that is >reasonable. > > On the other hand, there is a tendency for Violations of Procedure >that really matter to cause more trouble [TD calls, taking to ACs] so >perhaps it is reasonable that ACs give fines in such cases. But why only the Violations of Procedure that cause trouble? PPs for "procedural violations" should be distributed for all violations, not merely those that cause damange, or are perceived to have been "accessories to the fact" of a case before an AC. There is no merit in handing out PPs to those cases that happen to end up before an AC when comparable violations that do not occur in hands that end up before an AC are allowed to pass. The perception that the Laws are (or might be) applied inequitably and irregularly does nothing for the confidence of the players in the organisers of the game, and thus ultimately harms the game. Even though L90A suggests that such offences only "may" be penalised, there should still be some uniformity in their application. In any case (and at risk of restarting an old thread), what do we mean by the phrase in L90A "may also assess penalties for any offense that... violates correct procedure"? L90B goes on to enumerate some offenses, but stipulates that the list is not exhaustive. Disconcertingly I note that L74C is headed "Violations of Procedure" : "C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 1. using different designations for the same call. 2. indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play. 3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed. 4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success. 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card ). 6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one's cards). 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. 8. leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." This list in no way accords with the list in L90B, which I interpret are examples of types of "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". I note that the Prefaces of the Laws include the stipulation that "When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." This stipulation clearly suggests that failure to comply with the the Laws when directed by "should" (or any stronger form of directive) *could* incur a PP, however if that is intended to be the case, then why is there no clause in L90B to the effect that offenses subject to penalty may include "Any infraction of Law for which there is no penalty, or for which the TD or AC considers that the prescribed penalty is not sufficient"? Is the murk surrounding "violation of correct procedure" sufficiently thick to merit rewording L90 and the Prefaces? Or defining "correct procedure" more narrowly that "compliance with the Laws"? Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 01:47:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 01:47:28 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21410 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 01:47:20 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA20817 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:50:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020750; Fri Nov 6 08:50:38 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE096A.C6BCD500@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:49:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE096A.C6BCD500@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: L79B Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:00:21 -0500 Encoding: 15 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps we might scare up a foursome? ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] Curiously, Chambers gives "expiration" and annotates it as obsolete, which appears to be the reverse of what American dictionaries do. But if "expiration" is the "normal word in American English", then "expiration" it shall be. Unless, of course, the Laws Commission could by some wild chance be persuaded to use the word "end". But that might set a dangerous precedent. After all, if the Laws were both intelligible and unambiguous, what would we all do of an evening? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 02:28:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:28:06 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21756 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:28:00 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA03523; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:31:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003486; Fri Nov 6 09:30:44 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0970.69FF9FE0@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:30:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0970.69FF9FE0@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael S. Dennis'" Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:04:40 -0500 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It may also relate to the degree of training and clarity of national authority interpretations found in the "old world". At lower levels at least in the ACBL, the quality of the average TD ruling and education in Law may be called at best uneven. Many have been selected for their willingness to serve cheap or free or for their ability with a coffeepot. Even at sectional and regional director some TDs seem to be more adept with the computer and in the mechanics of running the game than with the Laws and rulings. There is a clear and present danger that unfettered freedom to rule as the TD sees fit could lead to abuse, either through intent or more likely through ignorance of what is a proper use of such discretionary authority. Your cultural points are also quite valid I believe, at least on the ACBL side of the pond. Craig ---------- From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] By and large, it is my observation that the ACBL'ers on this list, as a group, are considerably more hostile to any interpretation which broadens the discretionary authority of TD's, AC's, and SO's. As a rule, those from the EBU seem to be more sympathetic to such readings. My hypothesis is that this reflects a cultural difference, in that Americans are generally more distrustful of authority. It was, after all, against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Crown that we rebelled in the first place, and the entire structure of our government is predicated on the notion of limited governmental authority. The resulting inefficiencies can often be maddening when we want to get something done, but in general we would rather make it difficult for government to act. I hate to pick on David, but he does seem to be the most articulate and consistent spokesman for the competing view that the interests of the game are best served when the authorities are free to act within a broad reading of the Laws. Presumably, he trusts that others will rule with justice and wisdom, as I have little doubt he does himself. Shall we call this the Royalist position? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 03:43:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 03:43:16 +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 DAA22100 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 03:43:09 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcivj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.243]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02014 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:47:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:42:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement "Does not exist" was non-responsive. In fact, the 2C _did_ exist, on the table, and the AC appears to have had reasonable grounds for believing that prior partnership experience in this and related sequences had given North a strong basis for believing that 2C was a runout with a psych. If so, he had a clear duty to share this information, regardless of the experience level of the opponents. His failure to do so constituted MI. Was the damage to EW subsequent or consequent? I think the latter, if the inexperience of East is taken into account. An inexperienced player might well be incapable of imagining that her opponents have psyched, and would be understandably reluctant to bid a game when the opponents have announced a minimum of 19 HCP between them. True, this information is inconsistent with partner's bidding and her own hand, and perhaps a stronger player should be expected to work it out, or at least enquire further. But not this player. But while I am more or less comfortable with the AC's decision, I am in high dudgeon over Mr. Wolff's defense of it. The snide comment about "bridge lawyers...showing off their intellectuality" is merely the crudest and most distasteful of his remarks. His tone reinforces the impression, formed on the basis of the travesty of his other controversial Lille ruling, that he cares not a fig for the Laws of the game, preferring instead to force-feed the ignorant masses with the Bobby Wolff version of how the game should be run. Mr. Wolff has a pet project: Active Ethics. As a set of guidelines for how players should conduct themselves in the interest of fairer and friendlier competition, this has made and continues to make an important contribution to the game in the ACBL. Mr. Wolff deserves high accolades for his leadership in recognizing a problem and implementing an appropriate solution. Unfortunately, he has gone much further, attempting to assert the primacy of the AE doctrine over the Laws themselves and even extending their jurisdiction over international events. Like so many of history's petty dictators (benevolent and otherwise), he has overreached. Whether Mr. Wolff likes it or not, AE has _no force of law_, not in the ACBL and certainly not in international events. If he believes that the Laws should be amended to incorporate more AE principles, then there are appropriate avenues for pressing this case, as I am sure he knows. But it is simply intolerable that one man, however well-intentioned, should take it upon himself to ride roughshod over the Laws in a campaign to improve the behavior of others, and this is what Mr. Wolff has done, IMO. In his view, those who believe that TD and AC decisions should be made in accordance with the Laws are guilty of excessive "bridge lawyering" when those decisions fail to comply with his view of Active Ethics. Although there are almost always disagreements and disputes in this forum, I think it is fair to say that most of us place a high value on the rule of law within our game. The lively exchanges are a source of intellectual stimulation, of course, but we also believe that the interests of the bridge-playing community are served by clear laws, consistently applied, and that this principle is advanced by the types of discussions we have. I reject utterly Mr. Wolff's implicit disparagement of these discussions, and sincerely hope that his charm and undoubted bridge ability will not seduce others into supporting autocratic, idiosyncratic, and extra-legal bridge judgements. Michael S. Dennis At 02:37 AM 11/6/98 +0000, Bobby Wolff wrote (in reply to David S): > >Dear David, > >Quoting Humphrey Bogart's final line from the movie "Casablanca, "This >could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". > >l. No, East was obviously not trying to field her partner's psychic. >She was in outer space, catapulted by her own incompentence and >inexperience, together with the intimidation from her space age >opponents. > >2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and >entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing >off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game >fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant >thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission. >To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we need to strive >in appeals for the best result possible, not the best possible result. >We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse >talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to >create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious >trio of i's: > > 1. intimidation > 2. intentional convention disruption > 3. inactive ethics. > >Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to >be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to roll up >our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a chance in >order to stop them or at least slow them down. We cannot wait for 100% >evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for >apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be >subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. >And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some >embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not >conforming. > >3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West >were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the >intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not >responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should >dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to >psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special >ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to >everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious >sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all >the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is >going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and >then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to >say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that >EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten >20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so >rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering >and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a >way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At >least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather >than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not >even know it or worse not even care. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 04:12:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 04:12:32 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f60.hotmail.com [207.82.251.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA22251 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 04:12:26 +1100 Received: (qmail 3168 invoked by uid 0); 6 Nov 1998 17:15:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19981106171557.3167.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.46 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:15:48 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.46] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:15:48 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Craig Senior >It may also relate to the degree of training and clarity of national >authority interpretations found in the "old world". At lower levels >at least in the ACBL, the quality of the average TD ruling and >education in Law may be called at best uneven. Many have been >selected for their willingness to serve cheap or free or for their >ability with a coffeepot. Agreed, unfortunately. Personally, I *know* that there are certain regulations, important ones even, that won't be enforced, so it's not worth bothering calling the TD (they probably don't even know that they exist). And unfortunately, two of the best TD's in this area retired last year. I believe that we don't, as a rule, want discretionary power in TD's hands because too many of them don't use the non-discretionary power correctly. How about making TD's more responsible for their own actions by having a good, publicized complaint and commendation mechanism, and C&E's? Or a periodic review exam? I know it isn't reasonable to have ACBL-wide director's clinics like you can in most European countries, but can't we set up those clinics and bring them to places other than NABC's? (i.e. at least one regional a year in each area? - AK and HI, YT and NWT possibly excepted) However: > Your cultural points are also quite valid I believe, at least on >the >ACBL side of the pond. and: >From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] > > My hypothesis is that this reflects a cultural >difference, in that Americans are generally more distrustful of authority. >It was, after all, against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Crown >that we rebelled in the first place, and the entire structure of our >government is predicated on the notion of limited governmental authority. I don't remember that. We quietly, calmly asked the Crown to give us local authority over our lands, and 100 odd years later (after asking a Crown corporation to give us more lands several times), to give us autonomy. And the entire structure of our government is predicated on strong federalism and close harmony between federal and provincial governments (oh, and getting a French-speaking Prime Minister). :-) but please be careful with generalities USA<=>ACBL. There's a significant minority out here who aren't. And we have a *very* different cultural history. Sorry for confusing you :-). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 05:04:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:04:23 +1100 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 FAA22429 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:04:16 +1100 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.246]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981106180747.IKOU2310@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:07:47 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Michael Farebrother" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:04:47 -0600 Message-ID: <01be09af$f09b7800$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 inserts, no snips -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother >>From: Craig Senior > >>It may also relate to the degree of training and clarity of national >>authority interpretations found in the "old world". At lower levels >at >least in the ACBL, the quality of the average TD ruling and >education >in Law may be called at best uneven. Many have been >selected for their >willingness to serve cheap or free or for their >ability with a >coffeepot. An ongoing program of field staff training exists throughout ACBLand. Gary Blaiss has made it a priority to raise the level of our staff, both in the area of professionalism (laws) and public relations (table presence, selling, player-director relationships). Yes some problems still exist. Yes there is some uneveness. But the level of training and performance has certainly changed for the positive since I started working as a TD. >Agreed, unfortunately. Personally, I *know* that there are certain >regulations, important ones even, that won't be enforced, so it's not >worth bothering calling the TD (they probably don't even know that >they exist). It is unfair to make these generalizations unless you can substantiate them. It may be your 'opinion' that a regulation won't be enforced, but not calling the TD is certainly NOT the way to handle things. I know of no TD who would not listen to, evaluate, and correct valid complaints you may have concerning ACBL regulations. >And unfortunately, two of the best TD's in this area >retired last year. They may not have been as good as you thought. One of the tasks of senior TDs and TD Field Supervisors is to train and prepare talented individuals to fill the voids created by retirements, resignations, dismissals, and increased needs. >I believe that we don't, as a rule, want discretionary power in >TD's hands because too many of them don't use the non-discretionary >power correctly. Larger sectionals, all regionals, and NABCs include senior field staff. NO discretionary decision is made without a number of staff members consulting with those senior staffers. Again, you may believe what you are writing, but that does not make it fact. >How about making TD's more responsible for their own actions by >having a good, publicized complaint and commendation mechanism, and >C&E's? Or a periodic review exam? I know it isn't reasonable to >have ACBL-wide director's clinics like you can in most European >countries, but can't we set up those clinics and bring them to places >other than NABC's? (i.e. at least one regional a year in each area? - >AK and HI, YT and NWT possibly excepted) The PTDA (Professional Tournament Directors Association) recognizes top TDs each year at the summer NABC. Each TD in the weekly mailings from Memphis receives copies of commendations and complaints that are generated in the field. Any complaint is addressed, responded to, and corrected. TDs repeatedly generating complaints or problems are suspended or dismissed. okay, I did snip the rest about the Crown colonies :)) thanks for letting me vent Michael. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 05:20:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:20:58 +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 FAA22471 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:20:55 +1100 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p17-m1-pm4.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.104.17]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA02217 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 07:24:26 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <3642FCA0.A49D1102@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 02:41:52 +1300 From: wayne burrows X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <1.5.4.16.19981107003220.11afa132@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > But why only the Violations of Procedure that cause trouble? PPs for > "procedural violations" should be distributed for all violations, not merely > those that cause damange, or are perceived to have been "accessories to the > fact" of a case before an AC. There is no merit in handing out PPs to those > cases that happen to end up before an AC when comparable violations that do > not occur in hands that end up before an AC are allowed to pass. > I agree. > The perception that the Laws are (or might be) applied inequitably and > irregularly does nothing for the confidence of the players in the organisers > of the game, and thus ultimately harms the game. One of the cases that I quoted was a penalty imposed on my partnership (the others were not) for failing to alert a takeout double at the three-level. Yet almost every session I can just about guarantee that some opponent or other will fail to alert (often in a similar situation) and I think, bitterly but with tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps I should call the TD and get a penalty imposed. > Even though L90A suggests > that such offences only "may" be penalised, there should still be some > uniformity in their application. > > In any case (and at risk of restarting an old thread), what do we mean by > the phrase in L90A "may also assess penalties for any offense that... > violates correct procedure"? L90B goes on to enumerate some offenses, but > stipulates that the list is not exhaustive. To my mind 'may' suggests that some discretion should be applied and that penalties should not be ordinarily applied. I do not believe that the fact that a case goes to appeal (to restore equity) should warrant the imposition of a penalty. The 1987 Laws had a paragraph at the beginning headed "The scope of the Laws". The last sentance of this paragraph stated that the primary aim of the laws was not as punishment but to redress damage. This paragraph I can not find in the 1997 Laws. Does this mean that there is a change in emphasis? > Disconcertingly I note that L74C > is headed "Violations of Procedure" : Under "Interpretation of the Laws" is the following statement: "A great deal of effort has been expended to make these Laws easy to use. References from one Law to another have been made more explicit. The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a Law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws)." I guess that the fact that the same word is used does not necessarily mean that the Laws are related if there is no direct reference. > "C. Violations of Procedure > The following are considered violations of procedure: > 1. using different designations for the same call. > 2. indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play. > 3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick > that has not been completed. > 4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call > attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still > required for success. > 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or > at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of > observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act > on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card ). > 6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding > one's cards). > 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of > disconcerting an opponent. > 8. leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." > > This list in no way accords with the list in L90B, which I interpret are > examples of types of "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". > > I note that the Prefaces of the Laws include the stipulation that "When a > player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a > statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will > jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." > > This stipulation clearly suggests that failure to comply with the the Laws > when directed by "should" (or any stronger form of directive) *could* incur > a PP, however if that is intended to be the case, then why is there no > clause in L90B to the effect that offenses subject to penalty may include > "Any infraction of Law for which there is no penalty, or for which the TD or > AC considers that the prescribed penalty is not sufficient"? > > Is the murk surrounding "violation of correct procedure" sufficiently thick > to merit rewording L90 and the Prefaces? Or defining "correct procedure" > more narrowly that "compliance with the Laws"? > > Mark Abraham Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 05:47:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:47:50 +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 FAA22535 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 05:47:43 +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 NAA17614 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA26399 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:51:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:51:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811061851.NAA26399@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: wayne burrows > To my mind 'may' suggests that some discretion should be applied Yes. It doesn't say _who_ should have discretion or in what ways. Just to take one example, one SO might impose a mandatory penalty for failing to wait after a skip bid. A different SO might forbid such a penalty, and yet a third might tell its TD's to impose a penalty but only after having given a warning on a previous occasion. In practice, most SO's probably expect TD's to use their own discretion, taking into account the nature of the offense, the experience level of the player, and the level of competition. > and that penalties should not be ordinarily applied. This doesn't follow. See the Preface discussion of "should," "shall," and "must." Absent specific guidance from the SO, I would expect TD's to use these words as guidelines but also to consider any mitigating (e.g. the offender is a beginner) or aggravating (e.g. the offender has been warned before) circumstances in a particular case. If you are against PP's for violations of procedure, just what do you do when a player refuses to wait after a skip bid? > I do not believe that the fact that a case goes to appeal > (to restore equity) should warrant > the imposition of a penalty. I tend to agree with this. If there are violations that deserve PP's, TD's should impose the appropriate penalty regardless of whether the case is appealed. On the other hand, if you believe a PP is less needed when a score adjustment is given (and I'm personally fairly dubious about that, but many believe it), then having an AC remove the score adjustment and impose a PP isn't ridiculous. In effect, there are the following degrees: no adjustment, no PP; no adjustment but a PP; adjustment, no PP; adjustment and a PP. The AC has merely judged the offense to be of "degree 2" rather than "degree 3." What's wrong with that? David Stevenson's bridge page contains a dialog on PP's, and some may want to have a glance at it. It sets forth what he and I believe to be the guiding principles for when PP's should be given. There are certainly other people who disagree with us. > The 1987 Laws had a paragraph at the beginning headed "The scope of the > Laws". It's still there. Look just after the Table of Contents and just before the definitions. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 06:01:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:01:28 +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 GAA22590 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:01:22 +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 OAA18626 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA26437 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:05:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:05:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811061905.OAA26437@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: online alert systems X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > This thread was concerned with the idea that *every* call > made online would have an explanation. While it might be OK for 1NT > openings and Transfers, it is all the other cases that worry me. My original message made an exception for a non-conventional pass, but I didn't repeat that point. > Pass <11 HCP > 1H 5+ > 3D weak > Dble Negative > Pass > 3S natural > Pass > 4C natural > Pass > 4D cue > Pass > 4S natural > Pass > Pass [I have deleted "no interest" or "ni" on each of the passes.] > Now, before you pass this one out, do any questions occur to you? > Did you notice the "Negative" double? Does it show four spades? > Which suit was agreed by the 4D cue bid, clubs or spades? > > I think you will find it much more difficult to ask relevant questions > than if you just have a few relevant calls alerted. So the objection is that the truly important alerts (or announcements) may get lost in the clutter of fairly meaningless ones? I'm not sure I agree, but it is certainly a reasonable concern. I agree that an explanation of "natural" is pretty uninformative, and if that's all there is to say, it might as well be omitted. On the other hand, one might well wonder what length was shown by that 3S bid, not to mention 4C. Announcing "natural" (or nothing) doesn't mean there isn't a question to ask later. Finally, I think replacing '5+', 'weak', 'negative', and 'cue' with either '!' or nothing at all would be a bad idea. While we might disagree about which calls should be annotated in some way, do we agree that the annotations, when used, should be an explanatory word or symbol and not just a single-bit "alert?" From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 08:51:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:51:46 +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 IAA23082 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:51:40 +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 AA145759340; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:55:40 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.Uqss.uquebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA173609338; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:55:38 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:55:23 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Law 11A 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, The more I read Law 11A (in English or in French), the less I am sure to understand it. The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member on the non-offending side takes any action before summonning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponnent in ignorance of the penalty. No problem with the first sentence, but please help on last. Suppose N is the offender, having made an insufficient bid. The non-offending side (E-W) takes an action (a call by E I suppose) and "may have gained through subsequent action by an opponent" (S?) ...."in ignorance of the penalty" ??? Ce qui se concoit bien s'=E9nonce clairement... Boileau Or use an other example. =20 Amicalement Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 09:06:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:06:48 +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 JAA23160 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:06:41 +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, 6 Nov 1998 14:10:38 -0800 Message-ID: <3643746F.3718E810@home.com> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:13:03 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge CC: blml Subject: Slow/Fast Doubles Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Various TD/AC rulings are confusing me. Am I so far off in beleiving that, in general,: a slow penalty-double suggests bidding-on, and a fast penalty-double suggests passing? Isn't the correlary to this that: a slow T/O-double suggests passing, and a fast T/O-double suggests bidding-on? (all under the assumption that the meaning of the double is not under dispute in any way). Appreciate enlightenment if I got this wrong. PS: To any "innocent" reader of this on r.g.b., I am *not* suggesting it being legal to use tempo to differentiate between doubles, quite to the contrary and am just checking how to rule on the actions of doubler's partner in the face of UI. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 09:28:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:28:32 +1100 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 JAA23209 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:28:26 +1100 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 RAA18712 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:32:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:32:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811062232.RAA28714@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Law 11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil writes: > Hi all, > The more I read Law 11A (in English or in French), the less > I am sure to understand it. > The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if > either member on the non-offending side takes any action > before summonning the Director. The Director so rules > when the non-offending side may have gained through > subsequent action taken by an opponnent in ignorance > of the penalty. > No problem with the first sentence, but please help on last. > Suppose N is the offender, having made an insufficient bid. > The non-offending side (E-W) takes an action (a call by E I > suppose) and "may have gained through subsequent action > by an opponent" (S?) ...."in ignorance of the penalty" ??? There is no penalty here because the call over the insufficient bid condoned it, independent of what happened subsequently. Here's a better example. West plays the C9 on a spade trick, then corrects his revoke by playing a spade. South says, "The C9 is a penalty card," and does not call the Director. East wins the next trick, and South now forbids East from leading a club. If there had been a correct ruling, West might have chosen to win the trick and lead the C9 himself, but he wasn't familiar with the rules on penalty cards. The Director may cancel the lead penalty. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 10:26:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:26:29 +1100 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 KAA23367 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:26:23 +1100 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 SAA20214 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:30:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:30:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811062330.SAA29619@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3643746F.3718E810@home.com> (message from Jan Kamras on Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:13:03 -0800) Subject: Re: Slow/Fast Doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras writes: > Various TD/AC rulings are confusing me. Am I so far off in beleiving > that, in general,: > a slow penalty-double suggests bidding-on, and > a fast penalty-double suggests passing? > Isn't the correlary to this that: > a slow T/O-double suggests passing, and > a fast T/O-double suggests bidding-on? No; the corollary is that a slow pass (when the option was a penalty double rather than a bid) suggests doubling, and a fast pass suggests bidding on or passing. A slow takout double suggestst that there is something wrong with the double, but not what it is. If an opponent opens 3H, a slow takeout double might be made on: QJxx x KTxx AJTx (perfect shape but a bit light) AJxx xx Ax AQxxx (no diamond support) KQx x AJxx Kxxxx (only three spades, a possible pass) KQx x AJxx KQJxx (only three spades, considering 4C) Kxxx AQ Kxx AQxx (considering 3NT) Axxx KJx AQxx Qx (maybe pass and hope for a reopening double) KJTxx x AQx Axxx (considering 3S) KQxx - QJTxx KQxx (afraid of a likely penalty pass) The last two hands would prefer not to hear a penalty pass, and the first would prefer not to hear a minimum penalty pass. THe others would all prefer a penalty pass, either because of extra defense or because of the possibility of playing in a bad fit. -- 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 Nov 7 13:25:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:25:29 +1100 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 NAA23943 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:25:23 +1100 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 SAA26265; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:28:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811070228.SAA26265@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , Subject: Re: L79B Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:24:53 -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 David Burn wrote: > Curiously, Chambers gives "expiration" and annotates it as obsolete, which > appears to be the reverse of what American dictionaries do. But if > "expiration" is the "normal word in American English", then "expiration" it > shall be. Unless, of course, the Laws Commission could by some wild chance > be persuaded to use the word "end". But that might set a dangerous > precedent. Yes, Anglo-Saxon words are to be avoided, as they are inappropriate for a dignified document such as the Laws. They give the impression that the writer did not progress very far in school. Otherwise we might see: "Shows" for "conveys a meaning" "Called" for "summoned" "Wrong" for "erroneous" "Talk" for "discussion" "Ask" for "inquire" "See" for "observe" "Gather" for "collect" "Has to" for "is required to" and other indications of a limited vocabulary. > After all, if the Laws were both intelligible and unambiguous, > what would we all do of an evening? Argue about Alerts! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 13:28:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:28:41 +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 NAA23958 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:28:33 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29571; 6 Nov 98 18:31 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 18:31:45 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811061832.aa29571@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I missed the thread on BLML when it came up---the volume of messages has gotten pretty high and I often don't have time to look over everything. So I guess I'll make my belated contribution to the argument, since it has come up again on r.g.b. I also posted this response to r.g.b. "Marvin L. French" writes (on r.g.b): > Sorry Mike [Abrams], I had the same interpretation you did, but the > near-unanimous verdict on bridge-laws mailing list (BLML) was that > you can never touch anyone else's cards at any time without the > director's permission. L90B5, which recommends a procedural penalty > for touching another's cards, was cited. Since that law references > L7, I would presume that L7's meaning dominates, and we agree on the > interpretation of L7. I think there was another law that possibly > applied, but I can't find it right now. > > When I put this subject to BLML, I did not reveal that five years ago > Kaplan had disagreed with me. Just wanted to test the water. My interpretation was the same as Mike's and Marvin's. If I had to determine the intent of the authors of Law 7 just from reading the Laws, I'd still be convinced that L7B isn't supposed to apply to what happens after the cards are returned to the board. The main reason is that L7 is organized in a time sequence: A. When a board is to be played it is placed in the center of the table until play is completed. B. Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position. . . . C. Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter . . . This organization appears to divide the procedure for playing a board into steps. Based on that, it would make sense to assume that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the rest of the text in 7B applies to the part of the process that 7B covers, and the rest of the text in 7C applies to the part of the process that 7C covers---but that text in 7B isn't intended to apply to the 7C part, i.e. the stuff that happens after the hands are returned to the board. Furthermore, suppose the intent of the Law's authors was, that after the hands have been returned to the board, that you could not remove your own hand unless an opponent was present, and that you could not remove anyone else's hand without the permission of the Director. If this was what they wanted, would they have said this? Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. I think that would be extremely odd, unless they were deliberately trying to confuse people. I would think that they would have said what they wanted to happen. Or, if they figured people would assume the "during or after play" clause of 7B2 applied to this period also, they might have said something like: Thereafter, a player may not remove his own hand from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. and let people figure out that 7B2 applied to players removing other peoples' hands. I think this is what Mike was getting at when he used the term "redundant". So, if we assume that "after play" in 7B2 *could* be reasonably interpreted to mean the period after the last trick is completed but before the hands are returned to the board (and the score is agreed on), I just don't think it makes sense to assume that the authors meant it "literally" the way some people have interpreted it, i.e. the period between the time the last trick is completed and the time the world is destroyed in a nuclear conflagration. This interpretation doesn't seem consistent with the way Law 7 is worded. However, Marvin's statement that Kaplan disagreed with this interpretation is a big hole in my argument, especially if Kaplan wrote the law. In either case, I think this should be clarified in the next revision of the Laws. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 13:59:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:59:38 +1100 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 NAA24041 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:59:32 +1100 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 TAA29682; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:03:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811070303.TAA29682@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jan Kamras" Cc: "blml" Subject: Re: Slow/Fast Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:59:04 -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 Jan Kamras wrote (perhaps tongue-in-cheek): > > Various TD/AC rulings are confusing me. Am I so far off in beleiving > that, in general,: > > a slow penalty-double suggests bidding-on, and > a fast penalty-double suggests passing? Yes. > > Isn't the correlary to this that: > > a slow T/O-double suggests passing, and > a fast T/O-double suggests bidding-on? > No. Non-sequitur. A slow penalty double or a slow takeout double shows doubt about the double. The corollary is: A fast penalty double or a fast takeout double shows no doubt about the double. Action suggested by the doubt or lack of doubt is of course different for each type of double, since one double is telling and the other is asking. For the takeout double, slow suggests caution, the doubler may be weak or off-shape, while fast suggests boldness, the doubler is well-prepared for any response. > Appreciate enlightenment if I got this wrong. > > PS: To any "innocent" reader of this on r.g.b., I am *not* suggesting it > being legal to use tempo to differentiate between doubles, quite to the > contrary and am just checking how to rule on the actions of doubler's > partner in the face of UI. Misuse of this sort of UI must be very hard to nail, as I don't remember any NABC casebook example of an adjusted score arising from a break in tempo for a takeout double. I guess you could adjust when responder unaccountably underbids drastically opposite a slow double, or takes an extraordinarily aggressive action opposite a fast double, when either action results in damage. No damage, no adjustment. And no PP! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 15:59:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:59:33 +1100 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 PAA24369 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 15:59:28 +1100 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 VAA12721; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:02:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "wayne burrows" , Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 20:59:19 -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 Wayne Burrows wrote: > > The 1987 Laws had a paragraph at the beginning headed "The scope of the > Laws". The last sentance of this paragraph stated that the primary aim > of the laws was not as punishment but to redress damage. This paragraph > I can not find in the 1997 Laws. Does this mean that there is a change > in emphasis? The Scope is in my ACBL version of the 1997 Laws, you must have the English version where the Scope is included in a section entitled "The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws," the "scope" portion of which is unchanged from 1987's Scope. Mark Abraham wrote: > > Disconcertingly I note that L74C > > is headed "Violations of Procedure" That is a mystery, as L74C was rightly entitled "Breaches of Propriety," and began with "The following are considered breaches in propriety," in the 1987 Laws. Every one of the 8 items listed remained the same, and is indeed a breach of propriety. However, L74C offenses do seem to be a bit more serious than L74A/B, which probably accounts for the different treatment: L74A/B are "shoulds," while L74C is not. It appears that the lawmakers decided that PPs should apply to L74C offenses, as evidenced by changes in the heading and first sentence. If so, no argument from me. As an aside, note the word "considered" in L74C, retained in 1997, which makes the statement weak and should be omitted. We used to call such qualifications "weasel words" when I worked in the aerospace industry, a term that is explained in my favorite dictionary, *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary*, as follows: "Words that destroy the force of a statement by equivocal qualification as a weasel ruins an egg by sucking out its contents while leaving it superficially intact." The phrase was given currency by Teddy Roosevelt. (Please excuse this wandering off-subject) Laws throughout the book are concerned with "correct procedure," from shuffling to scoring. To suppose that all laws that define correct procedure should fall under L90 for infractions is quite a stretch. Looking at the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy, it seems aimed at enforcing L74. Evidently the ACBL recognizes that L90 is not appropriate for ZT violations, and requires that ZT penalties be applied under the authority granted by L91. Those penalties are semi-automatic, not quite in accord with the "shoulds" of L74A and L74B, which imply that punishment should be infrequent. If ZT offenses are to be punished regularly, the punishment should probably take place outside the game, not within it, unless necessary "to maintain order and discipline," as L91 puts it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 16:05:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:05:43 +1100 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 QAA24385 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:05:38 +1100 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 VAA13414; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:09:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811070509.VAA13414@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:04:50 -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 Steve Willner wrote: -- > If you are against PP's for violations of procedure, just what do you > do when a player refuses to wait after a skip bid? You apply L16, as this involves UI ("unwonted speed"). Repeated refusals constitute disobeying a TD, indeed punishable by a PP (per L90B8). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 7 19:40:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:40:30 +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 TAA24685 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:40:24 +1100 Received: from lizard (user-38ldgqc.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.195.76]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA19481 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 03:44:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19981106225600.2adf29ce@mindspring.com> X-Sender: jaycue@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 22:56:00 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jim Guida Subject: PA forgotten Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A ruling at the club today left me uneasy, thought I'd throw it out there for you all to chew up: NS red, EW white, S dealer, bidding proceeds 1C-2D-2S-P-3H-P-4H and now it's East's turn to bid. She looks around the table at the bidding cards and says that she failed to alert her partner's 2D overcall. When asked what it meant, East correctly explains partnership agreement that 2D shows 5 or 6 diamonds and sepcifically 4 hearts with any number of HCP's. North calls the director and is allowed to change her 4H call to pass. East bids 4D and now South ponders for a while and states that he is not going to bid 5C and puts out the pass card. West passes and North bids 4H now, anyway. All pass, result -200 for NS. In the final reel, it is discovered that East had forgotten his partnership agreement, and actually held 10x, xxx, KJ10xxx, Kx and was making a simple preemptive jump overcall (he did not have the four hearts West thought he had, but remained silent through the end of play). South states that he would never have bid 3H had he known EW's agreement. His hand was A, Qxxxx, x, AQJxxx. Dummy was KQxxx, A10x, x, 10xxx. The way the hand was played, EW scored the diamond Ace, the club King and three trumps. Diamond to East's Ace, spade back to South, heart Queen around to East's King, club back to West's King, spade back to dummy's Queen, club ruffed with East's Jack, spade return ruffed by East after South discards a club. The ruling: NS are damaged by misinformation received and an artificial score of +300 is awarded them for 5 diamonds doubled down two. Your thoughts on this ruling? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 00:09:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 00:09:39 +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 AAA25180 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 00:09:33 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id NAA02445 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:13:04 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Nov 98 13:12 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, a To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, 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: > > Do you know why we have CCs and alerts? Because normal players find > it is an easy method of being reminded to ask at the sort of frequency > they need, and allowing some information to be instantly available in a > written form, *if* the oppo wants to take a look. > > Now what this thread has singularly failed to do is to provide any > suggestions that improve on this in any way. Pre-alerts tax the memory > and are thus not conducive to enjoyment. PEs are just a joke [partial > explanations, ie telling people one-third of what they need to know > whether they want to know it or not] which will drive people away from > the game because they will tend to bore people. > > So I have a suggestion: lets stick to basic alerting and CCs until > someone comes up with something that is [a] better and [b] ***makes the > game more enjoyable***. > Just a thought, I have no idea how this would be received in practice. It would be a relatively easy process to develop a "library of non-alertable meanings" for bids in many sequences. Suppose this information was included on the desktop installation of the on-line interface with a pop-up box displayed after each bid. The bidder could then self-alert if the meaning in the system they had agreed differed from that suggested. While there of obviously some UI implications from this it does remove a big memory burden from players and shouldn't unnecessarily slow the game. Opponents get to see the same pop-up box (and the alert status) before making their own bid. It would obviously be possible to develop separate libraries for different systems eg a default of "Bridge World" but players could mutually agree Acol or SA if so desired. Obviously the on-line supplier would need to ensure that all 4 players were logged to the same library. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 04:04:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:04:31 +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 EAA28093 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 04:04:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zcBqI-00010v-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:08:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:23:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 7 References: <9811061832.aa29571@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9811061832.aa29571@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >My interpretation was the same as Mike's and Marvin's. If I had to >determine the intent of the authors of Law 7 just from reading the >Laws, I'd still be convinced that L7B isn't supposed to apply to what >happens after the cards are returned to the board. Fortunately [or not, depending on your point of view!] we don't have to use any such method of interpretation when the Law is clear and unambiguous. May I remind you that the Laws were not constructed at one go? Several of the things that I consider wrong in the Laws are clearly there because of the piecemeal method of writing the Laws over the years, and it is inconceivable to think of any other method of writing them. If you want logic to support interpretation then how about this: if your cards are in the wrong slot [even one of them] you will be considered to have committed an infraction. Do you really want *any* method that allows your opponents to touch your cards at any time? I don't. [s] >In either case, I think this should be clarified in the next revision >of the Laws. I think they are perfectly clear: however, changing the headings would be a good idea. -- 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 Sun Nov 8 06:09:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:09:19 +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 GAA28374 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:09:12 +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 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:13:13 -0800 Message-ID: <36449C6C.830D99E@home.com> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:15:56 -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: Slow/Fast Doubles References: <199811062330.SAA29619@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > A slow takout double suggestst that there is something wrong with the > double, but not what it is. So - does this not imply that a *fast* T/O double is rather classic, ie that there is nothing "wrong" with it? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 06:44:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:44:33 +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 GAA28445 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:44:28 +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 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:48:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3644A4B2.93947C68@home.com> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:51:14 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge To: blml Subject: Re: Slow/Fast Dbls part 2 References: <3643746F.3718E810@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems my first scenario was too general. If I had said that, generally, it is warmer in the sun than in the shade, some would have responded: "No - if there is a cold wind and the object that shades the sun also protects against the wind, then including the wind-chill factor it might feel warmer in the shade". So I'll post a complete scenario instead: Matchpoints,nobody Vul., you are South and the bidding goes: N E S W 1C P P 1NT (say 10-15) X(1) P P(2) 2D X(3) P ? (1) general strength, say 17-21, not wildly unbalanced (2) some values, say 3-5 (3) T/O. Correctly explained on both sides of the screen You (S) hold: Jxx Qxx Qxx xxxx if playing 5 cd majors, respectively xxxx Qxx Qxx Jxx if playing 4 cd majors. a) What are your options, how do you reason, and what do you bid? b) North's double came after a 45 secs break in tempo. You are aware of L16A. What are the LAs, how do you reason, and what do you bid? c) Same as in (b) but now North's double was very fast. NB. In both (b) and (c) the tempo was not in dispute. d) In either case, does it make a difference if a Pass by North instead of the double would be 100% forcing? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 06:51:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:51:06 +1100 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 GAA28468 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:51:00 +1100 Received: from bickford (as5300-8-68.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [209.130.149.71]) by node21.frontiernet.net (8.8.8a/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA116438 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:54:50 -0500 Message-ID: <00bc01be0a88$a1754600$479582d1@bickford> From: "Bill Bickford" To: Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:55:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B9_01BE0A5E.B7CCABC0" 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_00B9_01BE0A5E.B7CCABC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Lille Appeal >(SNIP) >But while I am more or less comfortable with the AC's decision, I am in >high dudgeon over Mr. Wolff's defense of it. The snide comment about >"bridge lawyers...showing off their intellectuality" is merely the crudest >and most distasteful of his remarks. His tone reinforces the impression, >formed on the basis of the travesty of his other controversial Lille >ruling, that he cares not a fig for the Laws of the game, preferring >instead to force-feed the ignorant masses with the Bobby Wolff version of >how the game should be run. > I find my self wondering if Wolff's God Complex was not (at least) a contributing factor in the recent Hamman-Wolff breakup??? (SNIP) ------=_NextPart_000_00B9_01BE0A5E.B7CCABC0 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:19981107T195553Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_00B9_01BE0A5E.B7CCABC0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 07:32:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:32:36 +1100 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 HAA28581 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:32:29 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA3328 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 21:36:11 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:32:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Law 11A In-Reply-To: <199811062232.RAA28714@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:32 06-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >Laval_Dubreuil writes: > >> Hi all, > >> The more I read Law 11A (in English or in French), the less >> I am sure to understand it. > >> The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if >> either member on the non-offending side takes any action >> before summonning the Director. The Director so rules >> when the non-offending side may have gained through >> subsequent action taken by an opponnent in ignorance >> of the penalty. > >> No problem with the first sentence, but please help on last. >> Suppose N is the offender, having made an insufficient bid. >> The non-offending side (E-W) takes an action (a call by E I >> suppose) and "may have gained through subsequent action >> by an opponent" (S?) ...."in ignorance of the penalty" ??? > >There is no penalty here because the call over the insufficient bid >condoned it, independent of what happened subsequently. > >Here's a better example. West plays the C9 on a spade trick, then >corrects his revoke by playing a spade. South says, "The C9 is a >penalty card," and does not call the Director. East wins the next >trick, and South now forbids East from leading a club. If there had >been a correct ruling, West might have chosen to win the trick and lead >the C9 himself, but he wasn't familiar with the rules on penalty cards. >The Director may cancel the lead penalty. I strongly disagree. a penalty card stays penalty card whether TD is called or not, if it lies open on the table. (if it has been put back to the hand then you are probably right, decvlarer then accepted the infringement of the rules) If S says its a penalty card and W disagrees, he should have caled TD himself (isnt that art 9?). regards, anton > >-- >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. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 08:48:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:48:48 +1100 Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (pop3.okay.net [195.211.211.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA28709 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:48:40 +1100 Received: (qmail 17658 invoked from network); 7 Nov 1998 21:52:40 -0000 Received: from ip220.karlsruhe.okay.net (HELO default) (195.211.204.220) by pop3.okay.net with SMTP; 7 Nov 1998 21:52:40 -0000 Message-ID: <003f01be0a99$49453920$dcccd3c3@default> From: "beate.birr" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 22:33:48 +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 Dear Michael, together with this I wrote another mail as answer to David Stevensons. >It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement >"Does not exist" was non-responsive. In fact, the 2C _did_ exist, on the >table, and the AC appears to have had reasonable grounds for believing that >prior partnership experience in this and related sequences had given North >a strong basis for believing that 2C was a runout with a psych. If so, he >had a clear duty to share this information, regardless of the experience >level of the opponents. His failure to do so constituted MI. The facts are not true. Please read the mail I mentioned above. > >Was the damage to EW subsequent or consequent? I think the latter, if the >inexperience of East is taken into account. An inexperienced player might >well be incapable of imagining that her opponents have psyched, and would >be understandably reluctant to bid a game when the opponents have announced >a minimum of 19 HCP between them. True, this information is inconsistent >with partner's bidding and her own hand, and perhaps a stronger player >should be expected to work it out, or at least enquire further. But not >this player. Would you expect to meet this player at a Worldchampionship? How would you manage to judge how weak your opponent actually is? Am I allowed to tell the opponents, 'I'm sorry, I'm to weak to understand that bid, please make an assumption, just in case I will make the wrong bid now'? > >But while I am more or less comfortable with the AC's decision, I am in >high dudgeon over Mr. Wolff's defense of it. The snide comment about >"bridge lawyers...showing off their intellectuality" is merely the crudest >and most distasteful of his remarks. His tone reinforces the impression, >formed on the basis of the travesty of his other controversial Lille >ruling, that he cares not a fig for the Laws of the game, preferring >instead to force-feed the ignorant masses with the Bobby Wolff version of >how the game should be run. > >Mr. Wolff has a pet project: Active Ethics. As a set of guidelines for how >players should conduct themselves in the interest of fairer and friendlier >competition, this has made and continues to make an important contribution >to the game in the ACBL. Mr. Wolff deserves high accolades for his >leadership in recognizing a problem and implementing an appropriate solution. > >Unfortunately, he has gone much further, attempting to assert the primacy >of the AE doctrine over the Laws themselves and even extending their >jurisdiction over international events. Like so many of history's petty >dictators (benevolent and otherwise), he has overreached. Whether Mr. Wolff >likes it or not, AE has _no force of law_, not in the ACBL and certainly >not in international events. If he believes that the Laws should be amended >to incorporate more AE principles, then there are appropriate avenues for >pressing this case, as I am sure he knows. Just to mention, my partner Wolf is the most ethical player I know. He even sents me to a 5c contract in a pairs tournament, because of a 'hesitiation' of me in the bidding before though he knows it's worth exactly nothing. I made an oppinion poll after that hand and found nobody who would have acted like that, because it's completely crazy to take the zero just because a hesitation during the bidding. Beate > >But it is simply intolerable that one man, however well-intentioned, should >take it upon himself to ride roughshod over the Laws in a campaign to >improve the behavior of others, and this is what Mr. Wolff has done, IMO. >In his view, those who believe that TD and AC decisions should be made in >accordance with the Laws are guilty of excessive "bridge lawyering" when >those decisions fail to comply with his view of Active Ethics. > >Although there are almost always disagreements and disputes in this forum, >I think it is fair to say that most of us place a high value on the rule of >law within our game. The lively exchanges are a source of intellectual >stimulation, of course, but we also believe that the interests of the >bridge-playing community are served by clear laws, consistently applied, >and that this principle is advanced by the types of discussions we have. I >reject utterly Mr. Wolff's implicit disparagement of these discussions, and >sincerely hope that his charm and undoubted bridge ability will not seduce >others into supporting autocratic, idiosyncratic, and extra-legal bridge >judgements. > >Michael S. Dennis > >At 02:37 AM 11/6/98 +0000, Bobby Wolff wrote (in reply to David S): >> >>Dear David, >> >>Quoting Humphrey Bogart's final line from the movie "Casablanca, "This >>could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". >> >>l. No, East was obviously not trying to field her partner's psychic. >>She was in outer space, catapulted by her own incompentence and >>inexperience, together with the intimidation from her space age >>opponents. >> >>2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and >>entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing >>off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game >>fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant >>thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission. >>To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we need to strive >>in appeals for the best result possible, not the best possible result. >>We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse >>talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to >>create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious >>trio of i's: >> >> 1. intimidation >> 2. intentional convention disruption >> 3. inactive ethics. >> >>Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to >>be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to roll up >>our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a chance in >>order to stop them or at least slow them down. We cannot wait for 100% >>evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for >>apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be >>subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. >>And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some >>embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not >>conforming. >> >>3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West >>were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the >>intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not >>responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should >>dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to >>psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special >>ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to >>everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious >>sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all >>the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is >>going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and >>then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to >>say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that >>EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten >>20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so >>rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering >>and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a >>way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At >>least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather >>than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not >>even know it or worse not even care. >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 08:48:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:48:56 +1100 Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (pop3.ipf-online.de [195.211.211.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA28716 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:48:48 +1100 Received: (qmail 17717 invoked from network); 7 Nov 1998 21:52:45 -0000 Received: from ip220.karlsruhe.okay.net (HELO default) (195.211.204.220) by pop3.okay.net with SMTP; 7 Nov 1998 21:52:45 -0000 Message-ID: <004101be0a99$4c834d20$dcccd3c3@default> From: "beate.birr" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 22:54:00 +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 Dear David, thank you very much for publishing our case on your webpage and also thanks for quizzing Bobby Wolff about it, which of course is very interesting for me and might give me the opportunitiy to ask some questions, too. First I want to make clear something about his comment for the Appeals Case Book. The comment says: '... , a bid he has made many times before from his side of the table.' I am very upset about that comment and I really must hold on! We have never had that situation before in our 7 years lasting partnership! We told that to the appeals committee! We also told the appeals committee that it was my first psych, but Wolf (my pd) had psyched before in different ways. In my opinion he isn't a frequent psycher, if he bluffs once a year and you have played about 1.000 hands during that period together. Wolf told the appeals commitee, that he would never make such a crazy psych and he was strongly quizzed by Bobby Wolff what he'd consider to be a 'reasonable' one. Only because of his knowledge about situations where a psych might be a good bet - I guess Bobby Wolff has that special knowledge too, maybe even a better one than Wolf - he cannot make that conclusion. I would like to ask him where he got his knowledge that in our partnership a 2c bid by the 1NT opener usually showed a psychic, though we hadn't had that situation before? Couldn't it be possible that I just had clubs and didn't feel well playing 1NTxx with a 11 point hand without defensive values? I also could make a psyche by bidding 2c having a normal 1NT opening (I think it wouldn't be more crazy than the 1NT I actually bid). My partner didn't know what was going on at that time (no '..quick exit'), so the only explanation he was able to make was ' it does not exist'. Some people in Germany, and I guess it is not the only country in the world where you would handle a situation like that in that way, play 1NT x 2c x p p xx as sos, but this situation is somewhat different, because it's intension is not to make a 1NT bluff obvious, it's the responder who bids the xx. By the way, we play a convention to escape for the responder if the bidding goes 1NT x, so the convention I descibed above isn't on in our partnership. So there is a 2nd question I would like to ask How can Bobby Wolff assume that we have an agreement like that? He has no description of our system and he hasn't asked us. Answer number 2.2 says 'intentional convention disruption', does he mean psychs with that? If so, it would be a contradiction to his comment for the ACBL-Appeals book, where he says '.. Psychics have long been a fundamental part of our game and should continue to be so.'? And I also have a 3rd question: How can you decrease the score a pair got, just because they are poor players? They also get a high percentage score if they accidently played 1NT with 30 points, everybody made 8 tricks and they made 7. Thats bridge. I don't want poor players to be excluded from a world championship. It also could be very difficult to fix the ones who might be too weak. But anybody who decides to start has to accept the laws which are on at a Worldchampionship. We didn't want to damage anybody in an unethical way, but I think if pistols were allowed as very uncommon weapons at a World Championship and fish in a barrel were allowed to take part in it without a button saying 'attention fish...', it should be allowed to shoot at them if it happened to be so. By the way it was the first board we played against them. We didn't know who we were playing against and I also don't think it would be a winning tactic to psyche against opponents you'd consider to be very weak. Thanks, Beate > > I expect you all remember Beate Birr's appeal at Lille after she >psyched a 1NT opening. She wrote it up [since there was no official >record, unlike *every* other appeal from Lille] and it has appeared in >several places, including as an article on RGB. If any of you do not >remember the story then it is on my Bridgepage, specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm > > Bobby Wolff wrote a short comment at the time, and another longer >comment for the ACBL case book. These also appear at the above address. > > This matter was discussed at length on RGB and BLML. A suggestion was >made that it would be nice to ask Bobby Wolff further questions to try >to find out what his position is. I have asked Bobby, and he has agreed >to answer some of my questions for publication. > > If you have questions for Bobby you can put them to me by sending them >to . However, I am not going to ask him >anything couched in an offensive matter. Whatever you may think of what >he did, we will not get a dialogue going by shouting at him. > > This is the first set of questions and answers. > > ---------------------------- > >David Stevenson asked: > > For a start let us consider the non-offending side. I shall come back >to the other side. > > In the Appeal concerning the psych of 1NT at Lille, there has been >some interest in East's actions. East had eleven HCP, and heard an >11-13 1NT, a double showing 13+ and a redouble showing 8+. East thus >knows that someone does not have their bid. Even after partner bid >again voluntarily, East did not bid game. > >1 Did the AC [Appeals Committee] consider whether East was trying to >field his partner's apparent psych? > >2 If not, why not? > >3 Whatever North-South have done, the failure to bid game appears to be >solely East-West's own fault. Do you not consider their actions >subsequent to any infraction rather than consequent? > >4 Why did East-West not get their table score in view of the fact that >they did not play bridge after the alleged infraction? > >5 One possible reason for allowing East-West a better score than they >got would be if the AC considered them beginners. Surely this was not >the case in a World Championship? > > ---------------------------- > >Bobby Wolff replied: > >Dear David, > >Quoting Humphrey Bogart's final line from the movie "Casablanca, "This >could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". > >l. No, East was obviously not trying to field her partner's psychic. >She was in outer space, catapulted by her own incompentence and >inexperience, together with the intimidation from her space age >opponents. > >2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and >entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing >off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game >fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant >thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission. >To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we need to strive >in appeals for the best result possible, not the best possible result. >We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse >talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to >create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious >trio of i's: > > 1. intimidation > 2. intentional convention disruption > 3. inactive ethics. > >Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to >be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to roll up >our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a chance in >order to stop them or at least slow them down. We cannot wait for 100% >evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for >apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be >subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. >And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some >embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not >conforming. > >3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West >were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the >intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not >responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should >dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to >psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special >ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to >everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious >sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all >the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is >going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and >then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to >say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that >EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten >20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so >rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering >and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a >way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At >least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather >than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not >even know it or worse not even care. > >4. Giving them their table score would have been a correct judgment, >but see above. I might have not thought about it at the time or maybe >we wanted to repair their feelings. Either way, Mea Culpa! > >5. Surely it was the case in a World Championship and will continue to >be, unless some genius finds a better way to stage our events. > >Return cheers (and from Becky), > >Bobby > >PS. Waiting for the next bunch of questions. Thank you for getting >involved!!! > > >-- >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 Nov 8 13:12:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:12:32 +1100 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 NAA29165 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:12:23 +1100 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA14513 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 21:16:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 21:16:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811080216.VAA19753@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> (message from Anton Witzen on Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:32:12 +0100) Subject: Re: Law 11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen writes: > David Grabiner writes [Law 11A] >>> The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if >>> either member on the non-offending side takes any action >>> before summonning the Director. The Director so rules >>> when the non-offending side may have gained through >>> subsequent action taken by an opponnent in ignorance >>> of the penalty. >> Here's a better example. West plays the C9 on a spade trick, then >> corrects his revoke by playing a spade. South says, "The C9 is a >> penalty card," and does not call the Director. East wins the next >> trick, and South now forbids East from leading a club. If there had >> been a correct ruling, West might have chosen to win the trick and lead >> the C9 himself, but he wasn't familiar with the rules on penalty cards. >> The Director may cancel the lead penalty. > a penalty card stays penalty card whether TD is called or not, if it lies > open on the table. (if it has been put back to the hand then you are > probably right, decvlarer then accepted the infringement of the rules) > If S says its a penalty card and W disagrees, he should have caled TD > himself (isnt that art 9?). I am not claiming that the penalty card itself is forfeited. However, in the situation above, South is trying to impose a lead penalty of which West may not have been aware, because of South's failure to call the director. (Everyone knows that a penalty card must be played, but not everyone knows the rules for when there is a lead penalty.) In this case, South gained from West's ignorance of the rules; he does not want clubs led, and West could have won a trick to ensure a club lead, but he let East win the trick instead, expecting that East could lead clubs if appropriate. As Director, I would rule that the C9 stays on the table as a penalty card but that South cannot now impose the lead penalty. If East does lead a club, West must still play the C9. -- 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 Nov 8 13:39:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:39:26 +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 NAA29234 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:39:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zcKov-0005s8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 02:43:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:43:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 11A References: <199811062232.RAA28714@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >At 17:32 06-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >>Here's a better example. West plays the C9 on a spade trick, then >>corrects his revoke by playing a spade. South says, "The C9 is a >>penalty card," and does not call the Director. East wins the next >>trick, and South now forbids East from leading a club. If there had >>been a correct ruling, West might have chosen to win the trick and lead >>the C9 himself, but he wasn't familiar with the rules on penalty cards. >>The Director may cancel the lead penalty. >I strongly disagree. >a penalty card stays penalty card whether TD is called or not, if it lies >open on the table. (if it has been put back to the hand then you are >probably right, decvlarer then accepted the infringement of the rules) >If S says its a penalty card and W disagrees, he should have caled TD >himself (isnt that art 9?). Are you suggesting that the players should know the Laws? The whole idea of L11A is stop players taking advantage. We do not want a situation where players rule at the table for their own benefit. It is certainly quite normal for a declarer to say that is a penalty card: you have to play it at the first legal opportunity. Fine, thinks the ignorant defender, and play proceeds. Now his partner gets on lead and declarer tries to ban a lead of the penalty card suit. If the defence had been warned then they could have defended differently so as to avoid this position being reached - maybe. Anyway, they had a right to know that. It is for people like this declarer that L11A exists: note especially the second sentence: 'The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty.' -- 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 Sun Nov 8 14:06:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:06:34 +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 OAA29294 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:06:28 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc48c.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.17.12]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01271 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 22:10:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981107220715.006f812c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:07:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Lille Appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:33 PM 11/7/98 +0100, Beate wrote: >'... , a bid he has made many times before from his side of the table.' >I am very upset about that comment and I really must hold on! We have never >had that situation before in our 7 years lasting partnership! We told that >to the appeals committee! >We also told the appeals committee that it was my first psych, but Wolf (my >pd) had psyched before in different ways. In my opinion he isn't a frequent >psycher, if he bluffs once a year and you have played about 1.000 hands >during that period together. Wolf told the appeals commitee, that he would >never make such a crazy psych and he was strongly quizzed by Bobby Wolff >what he'd consider to be a 'reasonable' one. The relevant question is whether your partner was in a position, based on prior partnership experience, to know that your 2C take-out indicated a psych of the 1nt opening. It seems evident that your partner did field the psych, in any event, based on his willingness to let the opponents play unmolested in 2nt despite your opening bid. That fact is merely suggestive, though, and not necessarily dispositive. You are allowed to psych, and partner is allowed to work it out, so long as he is not exploiting information which is unavailable to the opponents. As I understood Mr. Wolff's writeup, the AC determined that your partner had psyched 1nt before, playing with you, and had used a similar "non-existent" run-out to the 2-level in that situation. I wasn't there, and didn't have a chance to listen to the evidence or form my own judgement of the truth of the matter. But it seems like a creditable judgement to have made. And once that determination has been reached, the ruling is fairly straightforward. The fact that your partner would not have chosen to psych with your actual hand is irrelevant, as is the fact that the previous episodes had involved a psych by him rather than you. What matters is that he had some basis from prior partnership experience to make a good guess about the meaning of 2C, and that the opponents lacked that information. Of course it is quite possible that the committee misjudged the nature of the relevant partnership experience, and so reached a faulty conclusion. Since I wasn't there, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. >>Was the damage to EW subsequent or consequent? I think the latter, if the >>inexperience of East is taken into account. An inexperienced player might >>well be incapable of imagining that her opponents have psyched, and would >>be understandably reluctant to bid a game when the opponents have announced >>a minimum of 19 HCP between them. True, this information is inconsistent >>with partner's bidding and her own hand, and perhaps a stronger player >>should be expected to work it out, or at least enquire further. But not >>this player. > >Would you expect to meet this player at a Worldchampionship? How would you >manage to judge how weak your opponent actually is? Am I allowed to tell the >opponents, 'I'm sorry, I'm to weak to understand that bid, please make an >assumption, just in case I will make the wrong bid now'? I have never played at World Championship event, and so would not know what to expect. But you are not responsible for assessing your opponents' skill level. Regardless of their level, you are responsible for sharing with them any relevant partnership understandings, including those that can be inferred from prior partnership experience. Mr. Wolff's suggestion that you have some special obligation to protect weak opponents is simply erroneous. >Just to mention, my partner Wolf is the most ethical player I know. He even >sents me to a 5c contract in a pairs tournament, because of a 'hesitiation' >of me in the bidding before though he knows it's worth exactly nothing. I >made an oppinion poll after that hand and found nobody who would have acted >like that, because it's completely crazy to take the zero just because a >hesitation during the bidding. > One of the more objectionable aspects of Mr. Wolff's comments is the implication of an ethical lapse in this case. An adverse ruling should not, in and of itself, cast any shadow on players' ethics. While I am at least provisionally in accord with the ruling, I would wish to strongly disassociate myself from any such suggestion. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 14:45:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:45:30 +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 OAA29381 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:45:21 +1100 Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp132.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.132]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA10529 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:49:43 -0900 Message-ID: <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:53:09 -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: Procedural Penalties References: <199811070502.VAA12721@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: [snip] > Looking at the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy, it seems aimed at > enforcing L74. Evidently the ACBL recognizes that L90 is not > appropriate for ZT violations, and requires that ZT penalties be > applied under the authority granted by L91. Those penalties are > semi-automatic, not quite in accord with the "shoulds" of L74A and > L74B, which imply that punishment should be infrequent. If ZT > offenses are to be punished regularly, the punishment should > probably take place outside the game, not within it, unless > necessary "to maintain order and discipline," as L91 puts it. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas I agree with Marv's comment about 74A/B (ah! if only the Scope were part of the laws, the whole ZT thing might never have happened...) This reminds me of something that has bothered me since the beginning of ZT. I am not altogether sure that it is right for a SO to demand that a director impose L91 penalties: "L91A. In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof (the Director's decision under this clause is final)." This law issues a particular right *to the director* and goes on to clarify that his decision is to be final. Zero Tolerance is in effect an effort to award this power to the SO instead of the TD, by dictating to the TD a set of conditions under which he must choose to exercise his L91 powers. I think a strict reading of L91A would place the Zero Tolerance policy in conflict with, not merely supplementary to, the laws, and hence not allowable under L80F. Disclaimer: I am one of the significant minority that finds ZT to be contrary to the spirit of the laws (, and, more importantly, not the right approach to take to the problem). The law-90-vs-91 debate that occurred when ZT was introduced was, to me, an effort to find wording to jsutify ignoring the lawmakers' intentions. While I freely admit that my reading of 91A is a stretch, I think it less of a stretch that the approach the ZT fans take, and more in accord with the intent of the laws. End of anti-ZT diatribe. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 15:21:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:21:00 +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 PAA29450 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:20:52 +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 XAA11031; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:24:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36451D36.E0C17BD7@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:25:26 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Bower CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that players stated they would not return if this player was there???? Nancy Gordon Bower wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > [snip] > > > Looking at the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy, it seems aimed at > > enforcing L74. Evidently the ACBL recognizes that L90 is not > > appropriate for ZT violations, and requires that ZT penalties be > > applied under the authority granted by L91. Those penalties are > > semi-automatic, not quite in accord with the "shoulds" of L74A and > > L74B, which imply that punishment should be infrequent. If ZT > > offenses are to be punished regularly, the punishment should > > probably take place outside the game, not within it, unless > > necessary "to maintain order and discipline," as L91 puts it. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas > > I agree with Marv's comment about 74A/B (ah! if only the Scope were part > of the laws, the whole ZT thing might never have happened...) > This reminds me of something that has bothered me since the beginning of > ZT. I am not altogether sure that it is right for a SO to demand that a > director impose L91 penalties: > > "L91A. In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the > Director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in > points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part > thereof (the Director's decision under this clause is final)." > > This law issues a particular right *to the director* and goes on to > clarify that his decision is to be final. Zero Tolerance is in effect an > effort to award this power to the SO instead of the TD, by dictating to > the TD a set of conditions under which he must choose to exercise his > L91 powers. I think a strict reading of L91A would place the Zero > Tolerance policy in conflict with, not merely supplementary to, the > laws, and hence not allowable under L80F. > > Disclaimer: I am one of the significant minority that finds ZT to be > contrary to the spirit of the laws (, and, more importantly, not the > right approach to take to the problem). The law-90-vs-91 debate that > occurred when ZT was introduced was, to me, an effort to find wording to > jsutify ignoring the lawmakers' intentions. While I freely admit that my > reading of 91A is a stretch, I think it less of a stretch that the > approach the ZT fans take, and more in accord with the intent of the > laws. > > End of anti-ZT diatribe. > > Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 19:09:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:09:33 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f264.hotmail.com [207.82.251.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29723 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:09:28 +1100 Received: (qmail 25055 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1998 08:13:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19981108081301.25054.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.240 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:13:00 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.240] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:13:00 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:25:26 -0500 >From: "Nancy's Desk" >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius >that players stated they would not return if this player was >there???? Nancy > >Gordon Bower wrote: > [anti-ZT diatribe snipped] >> End of anti-ZT diatribe. >> >> Gordon Bower > Sure. I've even left a club, mostly because of several people like this (it didn't hurt that I thought that the TD was so obnoxious that ... but it is his club, and he has a right to be as obnoxious as he wants, if he can afford to live with the results). However, the right response (IMHO) is to take both players aside (preferably not at the same time) and explain that one player is threatening to leave unless the other one doesn't clean up eir act. (I'm assuming here that there is a clear guilty and innocent party. Oversimplification, I know) Given the choice between an obvious boor in my game and a normal, pleasant player, (remember, I'm simplifying) I'm going to choose the one who isn't likely to drive away more people from my club. So, unless e cleans up eir act, I'm banning em from my club. Understood? At a tournament, throw the bum out. Especially if you can prove it. You don't need ZT to supplement the Laws, just "Rudeness is against the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, and the penalties of those Laws will be enforced". Then throw a few of the obvious boors out when they insist on their boorishness. And make *sure* everyone at the tournament (maybe even the unit) knows about it. It will deter people, without giving every unscrupulous player the ability to penalize someone for a polite "Nice play, partner" when e executes a perfect elimination. If I may be allowed to digress into allegory, if your problem is a hundred tacks sticking out of your work, you can either hammer them all in seperately, or whack the whole thing with a bloody great big hammer. Both will do the job, and if you're working with plywood, the big hammer will save time. But if you've got an ornate carved cabinet door, you're likely to mar the finish just a little. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 20:42:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:42:16 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f263.hotmail.com [207.82.251.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA29845 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:42:09 +1100 Received: (qmail 380 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1998 09:45:42 -0000 Message-ID: <19981108094542.379.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.240 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Nov 1998 01:45:40 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.240] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 01:45:40 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have little comment either way on most of this set of questions (and so have made several large snips). However, I want to pick at this one answer. It may just be that the reply was couched in language I am uncomfortable with, and I apologize in advance if I have interpreted Mr. Wolff incorrectly. >From: David Stevenson > ---------------------------- > >David Stevenson asked: > >1 Did the AC [Appeals Committee] consider whether East was trying to >field his partner's apparent psyche? > >2 If not, why not? > ---------------------------- > >Bobby Wolff replied: >2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and >entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing >off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game >fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of >aberrant thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on >a mission. I am, surprisingly, speechless. I know that the internet allows all participants (more and more of whom are average Joe'sof whatever nationality, lowering the proportion of computer-industry people) the ability to speak their mind, aberrant or otherwise. The truly ludicrous tends to get either ignored (manually or killfiled) or shot down. The "I don't agree with you, and neither of us will convince the other, but I can see you're not a nut" tends to happen a lot. People who try to be king get recognized as such. And, I'm sorry to say, I think it's possible to recognize one here. As far as group on a mission goes, unless I've badly misunderstood your mission (see below), I don't want to be a part of that group; in fact, I want to be part of the group that's saying "Destination first, march afterward". > To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we >need to strive in appeals for the best result possible, not the best >possible result. Why? Simon is trying to get the best result possible with all the factors beyond his control at the table (cut partner, opponents, limited information and communication, and especially time constraints). I thought the reason for appeals was to remove all possible factors beyond control. I think in appeals we should strive for the best possible result. We have (at least at the world championships) a talent pool of the best possible players, judges and law-interpreters in the game. >We are dealing with players, at the expert level, >who have diverse talents, morals, motivations and reasons for >playing. Ok. >Consequently, to create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the >following insidious trio of i's: > This does not follow by any set of logical arguments I can come up with. Please explain. Also, who says we want to create a level playing field? Certainly not the people who create the conditions of contest at the Spingold, or there wouldn't be first-round byes for the top-seeded teams, and NICKELL et al. would have an equal chance of having to play BAZE et al. as FAREBROTHER does. > 1. intimidation Agreed. OTOH, many ways to intimidate are a violation of the proprieties already laid into the Laws. > 2. intentional convention disruption This one confuses and worries me. As far as I can recall, "convention disruption" was legalese for "they forgot their agreements", and the suggested penalty was to be removal of that convention from the offenders' system. So, "intentional convention disruption" must mean...intentionally forgetting agreements...no, that makes no sense...try intentionally bidding contrary to their agreements...which is *specifically allowed* by the Laws. > 3. inactive ethics. > I disagree. Provided I am proper and play the game by the Laws, I should be allowed to play the game. I admire, and (to some extent) am, an actively ethical player, but it is not required by the Laws, and I do not see where it will help make a level playing field. And I admire the person who sits at the table and bids and plays perfectly, and never says a word before, during or after the round, too - provided e isn't *un*ethical. >Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has >to be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to >roll up our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a >chance in order to stop them or at least slow them down. Why? Are they on the rise at very high levels? I keep being told that most professionals and true experts are the politest, nicest bridge players you can ever lose to (or win from, but I'm not likely to do so). Is that changing? And anyway, this isn't the only way we have. The way to deal with repeated intimidation is through Conduct and Ethics procedures. The best way to deal with inveterate phychists was found before Simon's book - and it didn't require legislation. I see no reason to mandate "actively" ethical behaviour, just crack down on unethical behaviour. >We cannot >wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh >punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Your version of "apparent disrespect" and mine vary greatly, I think. And I don't think that appeals committees are the right place for dealing with "disrespect" issues, and definately not for "harsh punishment". >Yes, at times it will be subjective, but as long as solid people are >in control, it will work. On the other hand, so does any dictatorship. See the thread about the "Royalist" vs. "Constitutionalist" positions. Having said that, I don't mind subjective. There are lots of things in this world and in the Laws that require subjective rulings. I draw the line, however, at attempting to enforce things contrary to those Laws. >And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus >some embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not >conforming. This sounds uncomfortably Orwellian. "Conform or be punished. Non-conforming is a crime, and will be treated with horror". I've been a non-conformist all my life, and intend to remain so. I expect to do that by being a gentleman and an obstinate stickler who will make everyone double-check their opinions and plans before implementation. In fact, this whole argument reminds me of arguments used in the 1950's and '60's against "communist infiltration" and "aggression" (if you aren't actively anti-communist, you might be one; if we don't stop the spread of communism in Vietnam, it will spread to other nations in South-East Asia as one domino falling will topple another near it). My apologies if I've got my history skewed (I wasn't alive then, and I've never been a US citizen) or if I've misunderstood the intent and tenor of your reply. I have to have misunderstood the intent and tenor of your reply... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 8 23:04:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:04:48 +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 XAA00264 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:04:42 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-75.uunet.be [194.7.9.75]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06216 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:08:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36458735.43F87C9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 12:57:41 +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: Re: Lille Appeal References: <19981108094542.379.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > > 2. intentional convention disruption > > This one confuses and worries me. As far as I can recall, "convention > disruption" was legalese for "they forgot their agreements", and the > suggested penalty was to be removal of that convention from the > offenders' system. So, "intentional convention disruption" must > mean...intentionally forgetting agreements...no, that makes no > sense...try intentionally bidding contrary to their agreements...which > is *specifically allowed* by the Laws. > Yes, but playing very disrupting conventions, and THEN getting them intentionally wrong seems to me indeed to be contrary to what must be good for bridge. Playing some two-level opening 4-10 is very disruptive, but not against the rules. Opening the same thing on a 0-count is not something additional the opponents should need to suffer. Getting the same conventions unintentionally wrong is also bad. If you play something difficult, at least you should make the effort to play it correctly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 04:53:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:53:57 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03306 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:53:49 +1100 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.131]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981108173515.DPTX10634@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:35:15 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: 2-part question Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:31:20 -0600 Message-ID: <01be0b3d$99620100$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 You are a player, holding in the south chair: Q 9 7 2 K 9 3 A T 5 4 J 5 Game All E S W N 1C P 3C* P P ? 3C* = Pre-emptive You are the director adjudicating this problem: A J T 8 3 Q 2 K 8 7 A K 8 4 K 6 5 T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 J 3 2 Q 9 6 T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 Q 9 7 2 K 9 3 Q T 5 4 J 5 Game All E S W N 1C P 3C* P** P X P 4S ALL PASS 3C* = Pre-emptive P** = 30+ seconds How do you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 06:11:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:11:25 +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 GAA03375 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:11:18 +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, 8 Nov 1998 11:15:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3645EE64.2D0BFB4C@home.com> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:17:56 -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: Lille Appeal References: <19981108094542.379.qmail@hotmail.com> <36458735.43F87C9F@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Yes, but playing very disrupting conventions, and THEN getting them > intentionally wrong seems to me indeed to be contrary to what must be > good for bridge. Huh - a weak NT opening is "disruptive" in the sense that you shouldn't be allowed to psyche it, whereas you can with a strong NT?? Sure, a 1NT opening is "disruptive" (in that it has preemptive effect) but so is a 1S opening. Are you suggesting 4cM players who open 1S on 4-3-3-3 should be restricted from psyching but 5cM-ers, or those who open it 1C, should not? Or did you mean that it is "disruptive" to have the agreement that opener is supposed to pass after pard's business-redouble [1NT (X) XX (P); P*]? If so, aren't we all playing disruptive conventions? Btw, it was that aspect of a pass that the TD penalized as a disallowed "brown-sticker convention", providing "psyche-insurance". Unbeleivable indeed! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 06:51:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:51:07 +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 GAA03456 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:50:58 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:02:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-197.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.197] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:02:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364F88A7.28A0@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:06:31 -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: Law 11A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L11A and the bigining of L50 ("unless the Director designates otherwise") help the TD to protect inexperience player against good players trying to use their reputation. If a player do not call the TD for a exposed card from a weak player (waiting the best moment for him to do it) and if the offender made a bad play because he does not know the law, the TD can cancel the penalty card ("designates otherwise"). If a player do not call the TD after a exposed card , "unless the Director designates otherwise" means also than the exposed card is still a penalty card. The TD cannot just say "you should call me in time", (even if the player picks up the exposed card) and the he will still rule with L50 "unless the Director designates otherwise" may be use in two ways: cancel or imposing L50. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 06:51:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:51:06 +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 GAA03455 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:50:58 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-3.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.33]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA23586; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:49:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3645E7EA.6702367E@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:50:19 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Farebrother CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <19981108081301.25054.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with what you are saying but I think that the Zero Tolerance program is telling the average player, who doesn't know the laws, that is there a wasy and means to help curb this type of behavior. The problem here is that all of the players are afraid of the obnoxious player as he has sued a tournament chairman and others for "defamamation of character" and the parties all settled out of court but were involved with legal fees, etc. A very unpleasant situation. He has since been banned from every club in town *twice*. Zero tolerance helped with this case, they may have lost the battle but they won the war! This person recognized zero tolleranceand agreed to abide by it. When he violated the rules, he was out. No contest. Nancy Michael Farebrother wrote: > >Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:25:26 -0500 > >From: "Nancy's Desk" > > >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius > >that players stated they would not return if this player was >there???? > Nancy > > > >Gordon Bower wrote: > > > [anti-ZT diatribe snipped] > > >> End of anti-ZT diatribe. > >> > >> Gordon Bower > > > Sure. I've even left a club, mostly because of several people like this > (it didn't hurt that I thought that the TD was so obnoxious that ... but > it is his club, and he has a right to be as obnoxious as he wants, if he > can afford to live with the results). > > However, the right response (IMHO) is to take both players aside > (preferably not at the same time) and explain that one player is > threatening to leave unless the other one doesn't clean up eir act. (I'm > assuming here that there is a clear guilty and innocent party. > Oversimplification, I know) Given the choice between an obvious boor in > my game and a normal, pleasant player, (remember, I'm simplifying) I'm > going to choose the one who isn't likely to drive away more people from > my club. So, unless e cleans up eir act, I'm banning em from my club. > Understood? > > At a tournament, throw the bum out. Especially if you can prove it. > You don't need ZT to supplement the Laws, just "Rudeness is against the > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, and the penalties of those Laws will > be enforced". Then throw a few of the obvious boors out when they > insist on their boorishness. And make *sure* everyone at the tournament > (maybe even the unit) knows about it. It will deter people, without > giving every unscrupulous player the ability to penalize someone for a > polite "Nice play, partner" when e executes a perfect elimination. > > If I may be allowed to digress into allegory, if your problem is a > hundred tacks sticking out of your work, you can either hammer them all > in seperately, or whack the whole thing with a bloody great big hammer. > Both will do the job, and if you're working with plywood, the big hammer > will save time. But if you've got an ornate carved cabinet door, you're > likely to mar the finish just a little. > > Michael. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 07:41:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:41:47 +1100 Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03551 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:41:37 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 7VUWa02243; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:25:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:25:13 EST To: nancy@pinehurst.net, mdfarebr@hotmail.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties 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 Nancy, << sued a tournament chairman and others for "defamamation of character" >> Is ACBL aware of this situation? My understanding was that volunteers are protected from such lawsuits. (I could be wrong, but certainly committee members are protected). Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 08:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:20:37 +1100 Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03588 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:20:33 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn14p35.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.163]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA09460 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:24:39 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:24:39 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199811082124.IAA09460@fep7.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: 2-part question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would say the pack is faulty, there are too many diamond queens, Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 08:34:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:34:02 +1100 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 IAA03599 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:33:48 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA26830 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:37:12 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108223310.009cdc60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 22:33:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Law 11A In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <199811062232.RAA28714@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:43 07-11-98 +0000, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >>At 17:32 06-11-98 -0500, you wrote: > >>>Here's a better example. West plays the C9 on a spade trick, then >>>corrects his revoke by playing a spade. South says, "The C9 is a >>>penalty card," and does not call the Director. East wins the next >>>trick, and South now forbids East from leading a club. If there had >>>been a correct ruling, West might have chosen to win the trick and lead >>>the C9 himself, but he wasn't familiar with the rules on penalty cards. >>>The Director may cancel the lead penalty. > >>I strongly disagree. >>a penalty card stays penalty card whether TD is called or not, if it lies >>open on the table. (if it has been put back to the hand then you are >>probably right, decvlarer then accepted the infringement of the rules) >>If S says its a penalty card and W disagrees, he should have caled TD >>himself (isnt that art 9?). > > Are you suggesting that the players should know the Laws? The whole >idea of L11A is stop players taking advantage. We do not want a >situation where players rule at the table for their own benefit. It is >certainly quite normal for a declarer to say that is a penalty card: you >have to play it at the first legal opportunity. Fine, thinks the >ignorant defender, and play proceeds. Now his partner gets on lead and >declarer tries to ban a lead of the penalty card suit. > OK, perhaps one remark then. Is there any player, playing for longer than perhaps a few months that has never revoked and has not heard of the penalties in bridgeland???? It is the most common irregularity in the whole game, so everybody (except the very novices) know by heart or soul the consequences of the revoke. Defence is warned by the announcement of the penalty card, and of course the NO side has obligations to check if offenders know what van happen thereafter (if not they should call the TD themselves) But if an offender hears the word penalty card and should be ignorant about the meaning, he himself should call the TD (btw HE committed the infringement, so he should have called the TD in the first place). If he doesnt do that, NO probably can assume he knows his obligations. I too dont want a situation in which TD-s are not called and players rule for themselves. Unfortunately here in holland most clubTD-s play themselves, so the calling of a TD is sort of self-restricted (i dont like that either, but thats the way it is). As last one, indeed i think players should know the laws, at least the most important ones (btw i train TD-s for club exams and i noticed that a lot of players are genuinely interested in how the laws work). Our NA even made a booklet in which most important laws are described - especially for new members. I fear we wont agree in handling this example (as TD i would check when called at the table, if OS knew about penalties in the first place and why he didnt call TD himself. If he really was ignorant i certainly would handle this case the way you mentioned, and a PP would be in place too - a very heavy one indeed). regards, anton > If the defence had been warned then they could have defended >differently so as to avoid this position being reached - maybe. Anyway, >they had a right to know that. It is for people like this declarer that >L11A exists: note especially the second sentence: > >'The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member >of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the >Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have >gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of >the penalty.' > >-- >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 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 09:34:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:34:37 +1100 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 JAA03663 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:34:31 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA1248 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:47:53 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108224351.009c7e00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 22:43:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <36451D36.E0C17BD7@pinehurst.net> References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:25 07-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that >players stated they would not return if this player was there???? Nancy > Yes I have had this, even a few times. We had to tell the person he wasnt welcome anymore because of his behaviour against some players who had severe problems with that. (personally I am very tolerant and the TD, so they dont dare to do to me what they do to others, and as second complication, the person who complained didnt have a clean 'line of behaviour'himself, but stil we banned the offender) regards, anton PS why did you ask this question? Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 10:17:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:17:26 +1100 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 KAA03730 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:17:20 +1100 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.233]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981108212948.OCGT521@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:29:48 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: 2 part question - more Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:26:11 -0600 Message-ID: <01be0b5e$681fd2e0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0047_01BE0B2C.1D8562E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BE0B2C.1D8562E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Second half of the problem the diamond ace was in the south hand, not = the queen. Sorry ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BE0B2C.1D8562E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Second half of the problem the = diamond ace was=20 in the south hand, not the queen.  Sorry
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BE0B2C.1D8562E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 10:44:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:44:12 +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 KAA03798 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:44:04 +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, 8 Nov 1998 15:48:07 -0800 Message-ID: <36462E5A.2779391D@home.com> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 15:50:50 -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: 2-part question References: <01be0b3d$99620100$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: > > You are a player, holding in the south chair: > > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > > Game All > > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P > P ? > 3C* = Pre-emptive a) Since I'm the agressive type I'll Double, but Pass is possible b) If pard's pass was very slow, I feel constrained by L16 from doubling and will pass. > You are the director adjudicating this problem: (I assume I still have the DA, not the Q) > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P** > P X P 4S > ALL PASS > 3C* = Pre-emptive > P** = 30+ seconds > > How do you rule? See (b) above, and I find it fairly obvious to adjust to 3C. This is a typical situation where those who beleive that "I must make the same bid as I would absent the hesitation" go wrong without bad intentions. I doubt there is any definition in use by which pass is *not* an LA. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 12:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:56:06 +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 MAA03971 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:55:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zcgc5-0005P7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:59:31 +0000 Message-ID: <+69evQAuFkR2EwNc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:12:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> <36451D36.E0C17BD7@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <36451D36.E0C17BD7@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy's Desk wrote: >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that >players stated they would not return if this player was there???? This is the problem: the existing Laws are quite able to deal with such a player, but the Directors did not seem to be. Such a player would automatically be removed by a competent Director, and the TD would not need ZT. However, ZT is primarily an effort to make players and TDs aware of what disciplinary actions are available to the TD - and from all I have read were needed in NAmerica and Sussex . -- 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 Mon Nov 9 13:14:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:14:32 +1100 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 NAA04007 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:14:24 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA413 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 02:19:53 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981109021551.009c9100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 02:15:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: 2-part question In-Reply-To: <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:31 08-11-98 -0600, you wrote: >You are a player, holding in the south chair: > > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > >Game All > > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P > P ? > 3C* = Pre-emptive as player i D. that looks rather standard to me (i hope) > >You are the director adjudicating this problem: > > A J T 8 3 > Q 2 > K 8 7 > A K 8 >4 K 6 5 >T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 >J 3 2 Q 9 6 >T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > Q T 5 4 > J 5 >Game All > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P** > P X P 4S > ALL PASS > 3C* = Pre-emptive > P** = 30+ seconds > >How do you rule? > > As TD you have to question what the 30+ pause gives for information. You know from bidding you probably have about enough for game and from thinking, probably your partner has a problem describing his hand. The first information is legal, the second not. So i would adjust (to some 3C contract going down i presume) and send offenders to AC. Perhaps i am a bit too simle minded? A better question should perhaps be, what does the AC with this problem. regards anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 13:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:59:58 +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 NAA04084 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:59:52 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm1-33.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.183]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA23315; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:03:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36465BC0.D598BF22@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 22:04:32 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KRAllison@aol.com CC: mdfarebr@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk They certainly were and it was the understanding of some of the defendants that there was a waiver of any rights to sue on the entry form that all the players signed. It was a very messy and divisive law suit. Ellen Adams was given all the papers involved. Nancy KRAllison@aol.com wrote: > Nancy, > > << sued a > tournament chairman and others for "defamamation of character" >> > > Is ACBL aware of this situation? My understanding was that volunteers are > protected from such lawsuits. (I could be wrong, but certainly committee > members are protected). > > Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 14:21:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:21:16 +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 OAA04174 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:21:10 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm1-33.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.183]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA25766; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:24:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364660B6.8C8726D1@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 22:25:42 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> <3.0.5.32.19981108224351.009c7e00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I asked the question to find out if people have had the problem and how they dealt with it. We have had the problem here, and people are afraid of the trouble maker and tend to overlook the bad behavior. Some of the lower ranking Tournament (as opposed to clubs ) are also reluctant to take any kind of action against the perpetrators, most stating nothing will happen to them anywasy. That's why I like Zero Tolerance. It gives everyone the opportunity to protect themselves against this type of person. Like the speed limit sign on the highway.... You break the rules, you pay the fine!! Nancy Anton Witzen wrote: > At 23:25 07-11-98 -0500, you wrote: > >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that > >players stated they would not return if this player was there???? Nancy > > > > Yes I have had this, even a few times. > We had to tell the person he wasnt welcome anymore because of his behaviour > against some players who had severe problems with that. > (personally I am very tolerant and the TD, so they dont dare to do to me > what they do to others, and as second complication, the person who > complained didnt have a clean 'line of behaviour'himself, but stil we > banned the offender) > regards, > anton > PS why did you ask this question? > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 15:34:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:34:44 +1100 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 PAA04314 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:34:38 +1100 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09460 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:38:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:38:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811090438.XAA10004@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19981108223310.009cdc60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> (message from Anton Witzen on Sun, 08 Nov 1998 22:33:10 +0100) Subject: Re: Law 11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen writes: > David Stevenson writes >> Are you suggesting that the players should know the Laws? The whole >> idea of L11A is stop players taking advantage. We do not want a >> situation where players rule at the table for their own benefit. It is >> certainly quite normal for a declarer to say that is a penalty card: you >> have to play it at the first legal opportunity. Fine, thinks the >> ignorant defender, and play proceeds. Now his partner gets on lead and >> declarer tries to ban a lead of the penalty card suit. > OK, perhaps one remark then. > Is there any player, playing for longer than perhaps a few months that has > never revoked and has not heard of the penalties in bridgeland???? Again, this is a rule for which the penalties are not simple. I have had players who believed that the withdrawn card after a revoke was a minor penalty card, and players who were not familiar with the lead penalty rule (if you bar a club lead and the leader leads the HA which holds, can he now lead clubs?) There can also be the question of what information is authorized. In my example, the C9 was discarded and may have been intended as a signal; is it UI to his partner that a club lead was wanted? (I would say yes, but how many players know this? It was a change in the most recent Laws.) I've had *directors* at clubs foul up the rules with penalty cards. One defender started putting down his own hand as dummy after the real dummy came down, and had exposed two small hearts before he was stopped. The director incorrectly ruled minor penalty cards, and said they he could pick both up when one was played. Another director ruled that the penalty for a minor penalty card of the C2 was that partner could play no card lower than the C2. -- 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 Nov 9 16:50:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:50:53 +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 QAA04498 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:50:47 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-93.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.93]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA21272577 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 00:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3646821F.90861A8B@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 23:48:15 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: 2-part question References: <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [a] If I do not have the values to act at the one level I have a difficult time scrounging the values to act at the 3 level. And if partner does not have the values to act at the 3 level, I still don't have anything to say with a balanced 1-1/2 QT. [b] Once North's pause extends beyond about 14-15 seconds there is too much information for South to act [South has already passed at the one level]. North has conveyed the information that he desired to take action but that he felt that he could not act to his best advantage [his hand does look like a potentially juicy penalty double which would be lost once he took action]. South's action is an infraction. EW were damaged by the infraction. Pass is a LA. The contract is adjusted to 3C down 300, the best result likely for the NOS and the worst result probable for the OS. IMO South's action is clearly a violation of the proprieties. There are a large number of arrangements of the unseen cards that a reopening action by south will be expensive. Opener can have a very good hand and still pass 3C. A vulnerable 3C call frequently will have some modicum of honors. There is nothing from the auction that suggests that NS have the balance of power except for N's UI. At a minimum, S needs a stern lecture on his duties when in possession of UI. Roger Pewick Richard F Beye wrote: > > You are a player, holding in the south chair: > > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > > Game All > > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P > P ? > 3C* = Pre-emptive > > You are the director adjudicating this problem: > > A J T 8 3 > Q 2 > K 8 7 > A K 8 > 4 K 6 5 > T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 > J 3 2 Q 9 6 > T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > Q T 5 4 > J 5 > Game All > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P** > P X P 4S > ALL PASS > 3C* = Pre-emptive > P** = 30+ seconds > > How do you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 21:56:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:56:19 +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 VAA05516 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:56:10 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:58:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-25.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.25] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:58:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <365084C9.1B72@wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:02:17 -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: Law 11A References: <364F88A7.28A0@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk dummy: K8765 J Q109 declarer: A432 declarer cash the As and west revoke. on the next trick west follows the suit with the J and declarer plays small. east (an inexperience player) does not overtake the J and the revoke now cost 2 tricks. declarer need not to call TD when he sees the revoke (L9.2a) but ... are you agree to use L11A ? (non-offending side gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 9 22:20:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:20:29 +1100 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 WAA05617 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:20:22 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811091120.WAA05617@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:24:01 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA080120639; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:23:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:23:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981107220715.006f812c@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 07, 1998 10:07:15 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 Michael S. Dennis: >As I understood Mr. Wolff's writeup, the AC determined that your partner >had psyched 1nt before, playing with you, and had used a similar >"non-existent" run-out to the 2-level in that situation. Let me just remark that Mr. Wolff's write up also states that they play 12-14 NT. They don't :->. It is Mr. Wolff's *opinion* that her partner has psyched 1NT "many times before". He does not have any evidence for this opinion, apart from that Lille hand which even does not make it clear at which point her partner was convinced that she had psyched. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 00:36:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:36:40 +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 AAA08473 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:36:31 +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 IAA18709 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:55:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109084258.00712814@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:42:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Natural, artificial, conventional, In-Reply-To: <1998Nov02.100000.1189.285352@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 11/2/98 -0400, Richard wrote: FTR, *none* of what follows the attribution was written by me; everything in the message below is from Richard W. I would take exception to just about all of it, as should be clear from my previous messages on the subject. I find especially onerous the idea that ACBL-sanctioned teachers be required to teach, and -- even more so -- that I/N and Flight C players be required to play, a mandated set of specified bidding agreements. This is the worst example of cart-before-horse thinking I can ever recall encountering. IMO it would be nothing less than destroying the inherent nature of the game of bridge in order to save the alert system. > ---------- >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] >Sent: Saturday, October 31, 1998 12:34 PM >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Natural, artificial, conventional, > >There seems to be a fair amount of discussion over my use of the word >"standard" when discussing possible systems for regulating alerts. A >number of individuals have argued against basing any type of regulation >on a definition of standard, generally arguing on practical grounds that >it is impossible to define what constitutes standard, particularly in an >international venue such as online bridge or a world-wide championship. > >During this entire discussion some people seem to have been treating the >concept of an "alert" and an "explanation" of a bid as being synonymous. > While on a practical basis, there may be a correlation between alerts >and explanations, these two methods of providing information to the >opponents are very different in nature and should be optimized for >different tasks. An alert is a wake-up call. Its very presence is an >indication that its worth paying attention to the bid in question but the >alert itself does not provide any context. In contrast, an explanation >is a brief description of the specific meaning of that bid. > >Frankly, I am not sure of the precise correspondence of the set of >alertable and announcable bids in an online playing environment. I >suspect that the set of all bids that should be alerted is a subset of >the bids that should be announced, but I'm not 100% sure. > >However, I continue to hold to my original position that the purpose of >an alert should be an indication that a bid has a non-standard meaning. > I consider the fact that it might not be possible to ascribe a >"standard" meaning to a specific bid to be something of a red-herring. > Consider the following case. The opponents are playing Acol. I can >think of any number of popular treatments that are used in different >parts of the world when making a jump shift over RHO's 1C opening. > >Weak Jump Shift >Intermediate Jump Shift >Roman Jump Shift >.. > >I don't think that it is necessarily possible to define a "standard" >meaning for a jump to 2S. Hence, I don't think that the auction (1C) - >2S should require an alert. I do, however, believe that the 2S jump >should be accompanied by an explanation describing the specific meaning >of the 2S jump. > >I think that the crux of this entire matter is that there are (at least) >two different fundamental design goals for any alert structure and these >goals are in opposition to one another. The first goal is to attempt to >maximize the amount of information provided by an actual alert. The >second goal is to minimize the complexity of remembering the specifics of >the alert system. Depending on the specific weight that an individual >places on each of these determining factors, their view of an "optimal" >alert system will look very different. > >My own perspective is undoubtedly biased by my conviction that a >technical solution is possible that is capable of automating most of the >routine chores accompanying any alert system. Hence, I am trying to >describe an alert structure that is heavily biased towards maximizing the >amount of information provided by the presence (or absence) of an alert. > >With regards to David Stevenson's point about the complexity of ACBL >alert regulations and the potential that these regulations have for >deterring players from participating in organized bridge. The arguments >that I am making are predicated completely on the technical nature of the >online line playing environment. I do not believe that the same alert >system is necessarily appropriate for a game conducted under different >playing conditions. > >New Thread >(In the case of the ACBL, I don't think that players necessarily object >to the complexity of the alert regulations. Rather, I believe that the >problem is that the alert regulations are not integrated into a >comprehensive education system. I think that the ACBL should consider >adopting a policy of the following form. > >Convene yet another committee, this time consisting of the most >successful bridge teachers in the ACBL - people like Eddie Kantar, Audrey >Grant, Bill Root. Have this group define a "Standard American" system. > Define this system precisely. > >Use this bidding system as the basis for ACBL education programs. If >you're learning bridge through the ACBL either via an accredited teaching >program, the ACBL web page, or ACBL publications this "Standard American" >bidding system is what you are learning. > >Use the bidding system as the basis for the beginner flights during >tournaments. If you're playing in the flight C game, you are playing the >standard system. No exceptions. If you want to adopt some non-standard >bids, than you shouldn't be playing with the beginners. > >Also use the bidding system to define the alert structure for all flights > If your bid means the same thing that it does under the "Standard >American" bidding system, than it does not require an alert (see, we just >defined standard for this one zonal organization). If your bid means >something different than a warning is appropriate. > >This alert system is undoubtedly a complex one. It requires that players >understand the "standard" bidding system, even if they don't ever intend >to play it. However, by using this same system as the basis for player >education, novice flights, and the alert structure I think there will be >enough synergy that players are able to handle the complexity of the >system. For many years, before drifting into high tech I worked as an >educator. (Used to teach college economics and later TCP/IP flow >dynamics) My experiences suggest that individuals are able to learn very >complex subjects, but the key to presenting this type of information NOT >to try to provide long lists of unrelated facts but rather to try to >integrate subject matter into an integrated structure. As long as you >provide a frame work that can be used to relate the facts into a coherent >whole, people can remember them quite easily. If can't provide this type >of framework, maybe you better rethink the material that your trying to >present. > >Richard > > > 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 Nov 10 01:08:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:08:12 +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 BAA08625 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:08:03 +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 JAA19771 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:27:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109091442.0070ce80@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:14:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 1/2TABLE In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 11/2/98 +0000, John wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes > >>80.29 Sit outs >>A contestant who sits out for a set of boards receives their average for >>the whole stage of the tournament involved, not their average for the >>session involved. >> >This rule is so obvious I am mind boggled that there are any other >approaches. Awarding an artificial score like 60% is just bizarre. It's not obvious at all. Pairs have hot sessions and cold sessions. It may even have nothing much to do with how the pair plays -- sometimes pairs have sessions in which they play a particularly weak opposing field and sessions in which they play a particularly strong one, with widely varying results. I'm not taking a position on what's right, but there's as strong a case for using the average for the single session as for using the average for the combined sessions in a single stage of a multi-stage event. And the latter may be totally impractical. Consider a club running a single-stage four-session event played over four weekly meetings. A high-scoring pair has an unscheduled sit-out through no fault of their own in the first session, and, under the rule David quotes, the single-session awards for the first session cannot be determined until the entire event is complete. It may, arguably, be fairer that way, but the players wouldn't stand for it. Consider awarding an artificial score of 60% "bizarre" if you like, but it seems that there are cases where it is clearly mandated by L12C1. Personally, I don't find L12C1 particularly bizarre. 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 Nov 10 01:23:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:23:08 +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 BAA08671 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:23:02 +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 JAA20512 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:42:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109092943.0070e1d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:29:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi In-Reply-To: <1998Nov02.151711.1189.285638@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 11/2/98 -0400, Richard wrote: >Two different issues here. The first is what material should be taught. > I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that >developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is >worth considering. Have any of the National Bridge Organizations >standardized on a single bidding system? Its my understanding that in >France, for example, there is a fairly tight consensus about what >constitutes "standard". The second issue is how to teach this material. > I could care less how a teacher presents specific pieces of information >as long as he does a good job in getting his point across. It would certainly be a lot easier to come up with a satisfactory alert system in a venue where "there is a fairly tight consensus about what constitutes 'standard'", but that has nothing to do with the issue. To equate the imposition of an arbitrary standard mandated by a regulatory body with a consensus is Orwellian doublethink. 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 Nov 10 01:43:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:43:40 +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 BAA08763 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:43:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zcsbF-0007KL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: <3zqMdJAyKtR2Ew8x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:32:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 11A References: <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <199811062232.RAA28714@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.5.32.19981107213212.009bdc20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19981108223310.009cdc60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981108223310.009cdc60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >OK, perhaps one remark then. >Is there any player, playing for longer than perhaps a few months that has >never revoked and has not heard of the penalties in bridgeland???? Yes, the majority. Players do not know the Laws - why should they? - and to assume they do would be an abrogation of responsibilities as a TD. >It is the most common irregularity in the whole game, Absolutely not. The most common irregularity in the game is failure to call a TD after an infraction. Try sitting quietly one night and listening what goes on at tables round the room: the number of discussions of things where they should be calling the TD is incredible. "Are you sure that I have to lead a heart?" "You are not allowed to finesse now you have claimed" "That's an insufficient bid - you have to make it good" and so on. > so everybody (except >the very novices) know by heart or soul the consequences of the revoke. We have had a couple occasions within the last few months where people have got the consequences of a revoke wrong **on this list** !!!! >Defence is warned by the announcement of the penalty card, and of course >the NO side has obligations to check if offenders know what van happen >thereafter (if not they should call the TD themselves) No, the NO side, *and* the O side have a *requirement* to call the TD. Checking that their opponents know the Laws so as to continue without calling the TD is a flagrant disregard of the Laws of the game, and provides strong evidence that they do not know the Laws themselves. > But if an offender >hears the word penalty card and should be ignorant about the meaning, he >himself should call the TD (btw HE committed the infringement, so he should >have called the TD in the first place). Now, Anton, there is no such rule: there is a requirement that *everyone* calls the TD! LAW 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity 1. Summoning the Director (a) When to Summon The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (b) Who May Summon Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. 2. Further Bids or Plays No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. Note "must" in L9B1 and "No player shall" in L9B2. To play on is a contravention of this Law for *all* players. > If he doesnt do that, NO probably >can assume he knows his obligations. >I too dont want a situation in which TD-s are not called and players rule >for themselves. Then why do you support it? >Unfortunately here in holland most clubTD-s play themselves, so the calling >of a TD is sort of self-restricted (i dont like that either, but thats the >way it is). We all have this cross to bear: if you are a playing TD then it costs you time, trouble and matchpoints - but a playing TD is not doing his job correctly if he suggests in any way that he should not be called when there is an irregularity. >As last one, indeed i think players should know the laws, at least the most >important ones (btw i train TD-s for club exams and i noticed that a lot of >players are genuinely interested in how the laws work). Very reasonable - but [a] not 1% of people know the Laws in detail and [b] while maybe 25% show some interest and know the Laws quite well how do you know the player is not one of the other 75%? >Our NA even made a booklet in which most important laws are described - >especially for new members. Excellent. >I fear we wont agree in handling this example (as TD i would check when >called at the table, if OS knew about penalties in the first place and why >he didnt call TD himself. Please remember to check why the NOS did not call the TD as they are required to do. > If he really was ignorant i certainly would >handle this case the way you mentioned, and a PP would be in place too - a >very heavy one indeed). It is not fair to give a PP for something for which both sides are equally responsible. Just make sure that no-one gains unfairly, ie apply L11A as is required. -- 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 Tue Nov 10 02:33:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:33:01 +1100 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 CAA09215 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:32:55 +1100 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA29161 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA06277; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:36:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:36:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811091536.KAA06277@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2-part question Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >You are a player, holding in the south chair: > > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > >Game All > > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P > P ? > 3C* = Pre-emptive > >You are the director adjudicating this problem: > > A J T 8 3 > Q 2 > K 8 7 > A K 8 >4 K 6 5 >T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 >J 3 2 Q 9 6 >T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > Q T 5 4 > J 5 >Game All > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P** > P X P 4S > ALL PASS > 3C* = Pre-emptive > P** = 30+ seconds > >How do you rule? > I will assume that E has the Ace and not the Queen of diamonds: I let the play continue. If NS go down, they keep that score; if they make, I adjust to 3C-1 (off one, you say? how can that be? Imperfect, but not insane, defence will permit -1, so, so do I.) L12C2. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 02:51:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:51:22 +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 CAA09357 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:51:16 +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 LAA24993 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:10:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109105757.0071beec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:57:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: On-line alerts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps OKBridge (or some other on-line provider) could be convinced to experiment with doing away with alerts, announcements and Q&A disclosure altogether. Pairs would be required to provide opponents with a fairly complete summary of their methods, at about the level of detail of, say, a WBF convention card, and that would be it. No alerts or explanations of any kind during play. Methods could not be changed during an event. I'd bet it would be popular. If it were popular enough, it could even be tried in serious competitions: L20F would have to be modified to permit exceptions in on-line play. It might be necessary to have CCs reviewed for completeness and comprehensibility ahead of time. 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 Nov 10 03:30:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:30:41 +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 DAA09564 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:30:32 +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 LAA26888 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:49:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109113714.006974e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 11:37:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <++0e+aANHQQ2EwFz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:39 AM 11/5/98 +0000, David wrote: >wayne burrows wrote: >>To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >>appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >>correct procedure. > > I think this is a matter for local discussion. So long as the >approach is consistent then there is nothing wrong. I think this misses Wayne's point, which is that it is inherently inconsistent and unfair to impose PPs on pairs who have had the misfortune to be the opponents of pairs who file rejected appeals, while pairs who have committed the identical procedural violation but have not been involved in such appeals receive no such penalty. That the AC may be totally consistent in its treatment of violations by pairs who appear before them as "defendents" in rejected appeals does not mitigate this unfairness at all. It doesn't make sense that someone's bringing a meritless appeal to an AC should affect anyone else's score. 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 Nov 10 04:57:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:57:08 +1100 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 EAA10009 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:57:01 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28183 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:55:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:55:01 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 01:39 AM 11/5/98 +0000, David wrote: > > >wayne burrows wrote: > >>To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for > >>appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow > >>correct procedure. > > > > I think this is a matter for local discussion. So long as the > >approach is consistent then there is nothing wrong. > > I think this misses Wayne's point, which is that it is inherently > inconsistent and unfair to impose PPs on pairs who have had the misfortune > to be the opponents of pairs who file rejected appeals, while pairs who > have committed the identical procedural violation but have not been > involved in such appeals receive no such penalty. In my state, the use of seatbelts is mandatory. Nevertheless, it is considered too invasive to allow police officers to stop cars just to check to see if the people in them are wearing their seatbelts. As a result, fines for not wearing setabelts are only imposed on people who have already been pulled over _for some other reason_. This means that, for example, if I am pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, and then it is discoverd I am not wearing the seatbelt, I can be fined, even if the officer decides later that the evidence shows I was not driving drunk. I do not regard this as unfair. If I don't want to pay the fine, the simple expedient if to wear my seatbelt. If you don't want to be hit with a PP, don't violate proceedure. I do not like the [apparent] trend to give PP's _because_ there was no other adjustment. [It is ruled that the MI caused no damage, _therefore_ we'll hit them with a fine.] I think PP's should only be given when there was something about the offense that makes them obviously deserved. {I think this question has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the infraction caused damage, but am sensitive to David S's argument that a PP _and_ a damage adjustment may be unnecessary overkill.} An experienced player who fails to correct a mistaken explanation when he definately should know better deserves a PP [I always was a Royalist, I'm afraid], and so it is not unfair to give him one--even if some other equally deserving infraction goes unpunished because it doesn't happen to come before an AC. The unfairness is the infraction that goes unpunished, not the one that is punished. > That the AC may be totally consistent in its treatment of violations by > pairs who appear before them as "defendents" in rejected appeals does not > mitigate this unfairness at all. > > It doesn't make sense that someone's bringing a meritless appeal to an AC > should affect anyone else's score. There was also a case recently where a person was arrested because he fit the description of a wanted burglar. It turns out he wasn't the burglar, but while he was in the police station it was discovered that he was wanted for another crime. Was it inherently unfair that he be punished for the other crime, when there are criminals out there who don't get brought into the station on meritless arrests? There is a woman at my club who consistently uses UI. Her apparent reasoning is this--most of the time, either her violation won't be noticed or the person who notices won't bother to call the director. If she does get a director call, sometimes she'll get a 'no damage' result. Even if there is adjustment for damage, it might well be no worse than the loss if she doesn't take advantage of the UI and gets stuck in a bad contract. It would be much fairer if she was hit with a PP [her behavior is habitual, and surely deserves one] _even if it turns out that her infraction resulted in no damage in this case_. If the TD doesn't do it, I would hope an AC would. I would not regard this as unfair--quite the opposite. The real problem seems to me to be this--there is a perception that not only are AC's imposing PP's on pairs during 'meritless' appeals, but that AC's are issueing PP's _in situations for which they are unwarranted_. I certainly do not think PP's [especially fines] should be assessed for _every and all_ violations of proceedure. If I commit some minor infraction which is so common as to be considered 'normal' or 'trivial', and I get a PP because my case happened to go to an AC for some other reason, that does seem wrong. But it is not wrong due to the mere fact that someone else is getting away with it--it is wrong because no PP was warranted in the first place. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling Long Live the Queen cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 05:21:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:21:25 +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 FAA10132 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:21:18 +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 NAA09916 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA28371 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:25:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:25:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811091825.NAA28371@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 11A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Claude Dadoun > dummy: K8765 > > J Q109 > > declarer: A432 > > declarer cash the As and west revoke. [and nobody calls the TD] > on the next trick west follows the suit with the J > and declarer plays small. > east (an inexperience player) does not overtake the J and the > revoke now cost 2 tricks. This is a very interesting case. I cannot imagine giving declarer the benefit of a two-trick revoke unless the defenders are to blame for failing to call the TD. (Did declarer try to call and one of the defenders stopped him?) I would, however, like to penalize the defenders two tricks. Calling the TD was their responsibility too! Is this sort of split score allowed? We aren't ruling under L12C, after all, at least for the revoke. Could we use violation of L9B1a to get to L12A1 and thence to L12C2 in order to give the desired ruling? Seems fair to me, but it sure isn't obvious. It does seem fairly obvious to use L11A if declarer was to blame for not calling the TD. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 05:23:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:23:45 +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 FAA10148 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:23:39 +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 NAA01626 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:42:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109133021.006a2384@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:30:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981105201051.006d392c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3640EAFF.3E6808E7@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:10 PM 11/5/98 -0500, Michael wrote: >I would like to set forth a hypothesis that relates these two discussions >to several others which have occurred. By and large, it is my observation >that the ACBL'ers on this list, as a group, are considerably more hostile >to any interpretation which broadens the discretionary authority of TD's, >AC's, and SO's. As a rule, those from the EBU seem to be more sympathetic >to such readings. My hypothesis is that this reflects a cultural >difference, in that Americans are generally more distrustful of authority. >It was, after all, against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Crown >that we rebelled in the first place, and the entire structure of our >government is predicated on the notion of limited governmental authority. >The resulting inefficiencies can often be maddening when we want to get >something done, but in general we would rather make it difficult for >government to act. There is probably some degree of truth to this hypothesis, but it seems easy enough (and has been done often enough on BLML) to explain the difference as deriving directly from (a) the way TDs and AC members are selected and trained, (b) the way information designed to achieve consistency in interpretation among TDs and ACs is disseminated, and (c) the extent to which the actual governing body of the SO is politically responsible to the membership. Historical attitudes toward authority aside, I strongly suspect that if our European colleagues played in an organization where (a) it is trivially easy to become a "qualified" TD, no training is required, and the credential, once achieved, lasts forever with no update training or recertification needed, (b) ACs can be, and often are, composed of the first n warm bodies who volunteer to serve, with no training or qualification required, (c) the only means of dissemination of current information are articles in the ACBL Bulletin, articles in Duplicate Decisions (which are sent to club managers and typically don't reach the club's working TDs) which are often mutually contradictory and which the SO, whenever it finds it convenient to do so, disowns as "unofficial" (and, more recently, hidden files in the ACBLScore program that are totally unavailble to the non-computer-literate), and (d) the ultimate governing body consists of people who are elected by people who are elected by people who are elected by the membership, so that it takes decades of dedicated, "poltically correct" service to the SO to become enfranchised to vote for its Directors, they would be as distrustful of these "authorities" as we are. 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 Nov 10 05:33:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:33:20 +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 FAA10194 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:33:13 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-243.uunet.be [194.7.13.243]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16386 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:37:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36473429.3A17CD45@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:27:53 +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: Law 11A References: <364F88A7.28A0@wanadoo.fr> <365084C9.1B72@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: > > dummy: K8765 > > J Q109 > > declarer: A432 > > declarer cash the As and west revoke. > on the next trick west follows the suit with the J > and declarer plays small. > east (an inexperience player) does not overtake the J and the > revoke now cost 2 tricks. > > declarer need not to call TD when he sees the revoke (L9.2a) but ... > are you agree to use L11A ? (non-offending side gained through > subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty). tres bel example ! If the attention is drawn to the revoke, and the TD is not summoned, then indeed I would apply L11a. If the attention is not drawn to the revoke, I would not like to do so, although I would not know how to go around L11a. However, if the -very- experienced declarer would let me know that he had willingly NOT drawn attention to the revoke he had noticed, knowing he could benefit, I would not find it difficult to apply L11a : "any action" could certainly include the action of NOT drawing attention. OTOH, we are quite clear that it is all right NOT to draw attention to a (suspected) revoke before this becomes established. Surely we are not considering applying L11A here ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 05:33:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:33:19 +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 FAA10193 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:33:12 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-243.uunet.be [194.7.13.243]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16373 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:37:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3647323E.706C7530@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:19:42 +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: 1/2TABLE References: <3.0.1.32.19981109091442.0070ce80@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > And the latter may be totally impractical. Consider a club running a > single-stage four-session event played over four weekly meetings. A > high-scoring pair has an unscheduled sit-out through no fault of their own > in the first session, and, under the rule David quotes, the single-session > awards for the first session cannot be determined until the entire event is > complete. It may, arguably, be fairer that way, but the players wouldn't > stand for it. > Eric is wrong : Awarding them a score equal to their own percentage is the simplest solution, really : you just don't give them any points at all, and you keep track of the number of boards they have played. At the end of the tournament, their score (and everyone else's) is divided by the number of boards they have played and hey presto - a final percentage which is ranked. Don't tell me keeping track of the number of deals is hard, since it has to be done anyway, just to have the results correct ! I agree with David that awarding a score like 60% (or worse still, their average over the session if higher !) over 4 boards (or even 3) is totally unasked for. > Consider awarding an artificial score of 60% "bizarre" if you like, but it > seems that there are cases where it is clearly mandated by L12C1. L12C1 : "... owing to an irregularity ..." It is easy to regard the absence of opponents as not being an irregularity. > Personally, I don't find L12C1 particularly bizarre. > Neither do I, but not when applied to sit-outs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 06:26:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:26:05 +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 GAA10497 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:25:59 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA04741 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:29:32 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 9 Nov 98 18:26 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 2-part question 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: <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> "Richard F Beye" wrote: > > You are a player, holding in the south chair: > > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > > Game All > > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P > P ? > 3C* = Pre-emptive Double seems automatic at matchpoints and odds-on at teams. > > You are the director adjudicating this problem: > > A J T 8 3 > Q 2 > K 8 7 > A K 8 > 4 K 6 5 > T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 > J 3 2 Q 9 6 > T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 > Q 9 7 2 > K 9 3 > A T 5 4 > J 5 > Game All > E S W N > 1C P 3C* P** > P X P 4S > ALL PASS > 3C* = Pre-emptive > P** = 30+ seconds > > How do you rule? > At MPs I seriously doubt I could round up even 20% of decent players to pass here, let alone 25/30% needed in these parts (bad players have a hard enough time interpreting bids - let alone UI). At teams, or under a "seriously consider" jurisdiction I would rule that the double was a suggested LA and adjust to 3C-3. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 06:29:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:29:27 +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 GAA10523 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:29:20 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-4.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.4]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA05314; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:33:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364742CA.65BD0B3D@idt.net> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 11:30:18 -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: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi References: <3.0.1.32.19981109092943.0070e1d8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe you have an excellent point, Eric. One thing I have been wondering about: why does everyone seem to think that a list of non-alertable bids has to comprise a complete, playable bidding system? If we were to have the rule (solely as a for instance) that we don't alert negative doubles, transfer bids, and ace-asking bids, but must alert other (another for instance) non-natural bids, we haven't come close to describing a bidding system, but are on the way to an alert system that might be playable. Of course, most many wouldn't be happy with such a list, but it could simply be a list of artificial bids that are so common as to be the "rule", rather than the exception. This presumably would vary in different SO's, but so what? Irv Eric Landau wrote: > > At 03:17 PM 11/2/98 -0400, Richard wrote: > > >Two different issues here. The first is what material should be taught. > > I believe that there are sufficient advantages to ensuring that > >developing players are all learning the same basic material that it is > >worth considering. Have any of the National Bridge Organizations > >standardized on a single bidding system? Its my understanding that in > >France, for example, there is a fairly tight consensus about what > >constitutes "standard". The second issue is how to teach this material. > > I could care less how a teacher presents specific pieces of information > >as long as he does a good job in getting his point across. > > It would certainly be a lot easier to come up with a satisfactory alert > system in a venue where "there is a fairly tight consensus about what > constitutes 'standard'", but that has nothing to do with the issue. To > equate the imposition of an arbitrary standard mandated by a regulatory > body with a consensus is Orwellian doublethink. > > 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 Nov 10 06:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:34:28 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f218.hotmail.com [207.82.251.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA10561 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:34:21 +1100 Received: (qmail 1902 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 1998 19:37:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19981109193755.1901.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 1998 11:37:43 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.89] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 11A MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 11:37:43 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:25:22 -0500 (EST) >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Law 11A > >> From: Claude Dadoun >> dummy: K8765 >> >> J Q109 >> >> declarer: A432 >> >> declarer cash the As and west revoke. [and nobody calls the TD] Ok, fine so far. Probably no-one noticed (after all, unless someone has a complete count on the hand, only West can notice). >> on the next trick west follows the suit with the J >> and declarer plays small. Ok, fine so far as well. If East and West notice, they are specifically allowed to not draw attention to the revoke (L72B3), provided they do not attempt to conceal it (L72B4). If they then play poorly (i.e. turn a potential 1-trick revoke penalty into a 2-trick one), that's their problem. If declarer noticed, e also need not draw attention to it (and I think can even wait until later to draw attention to it - but may be then under the constraint of L11A. I'm confused here.) *If attention was drawn to the revoke*, then the director must be summoned, the information about penalities given, and then East has an option to clue in. If not - sorry. This sounds very bridge-lawyerly, and I wouldn't do it (unless I truly didn't clue in until East showed out - not likely but it has happened); but I think it's legal, and it would be very hard to mandate that attention be drawn to any infraction by the NOS as soon as it is noticed (except by dummy, of course). >> east (an inexperience player) does not overtake the J and the >> revoke now cost 2 tricks. > >This is a very interesting case. I cannot imagine giving declarer the >benefit of a two-trick revoke unless the defenders are to blame for >failing to call the TD. (Did declarer try to call and one of the >defenders stopped him?) I would, however, like to penalize the >defenders two tricks. Calling the TD was their responsibility too! > Calling the TD is neither side's responsibility *if attention is not drawn to the revoke*. I would have to be convinced that indeed no attention was drawn (if so, I agree with 2-tricks EW, 1-trick NS, a reading of the law that states that everyone (including dummy) is required to call the TD if attention is drawn, and hope that split scores are allowed, or apply a 1-trick PP if not :-) because most people react very visibly and audibly when a revoke is found out, but I would ask the questions to find out. Have I opened a new can of worms? Another active ethics thread, even? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 06:38:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:38:22 +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 GAA10595 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:38:05 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id OAA13744; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:41:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA03582; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:41:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811091941.OAA03582@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: 2-part question To: rbeye@worldnet.att.net (Richard F Beye) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:41:34 -0500 (EST) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) In-Reply-To: <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> from "Richard F Beye" at Nov 8, 98 11:31:20 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 Richard F Beye wrote: >>You are the director adjudicating this problem: >> >> A J T 8 3 >> Q 2 >> K 8 7 >> A K 8 >>4 K 6 5 >>T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 >>J 3 2 Q 9 6 >>T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 >> Q 9 7 2 >> K 9 3 >> Q T 5 4 >> J 5 >>Game All >> E S W N >> 1C P 3C* P** >> P X P 4S >> ALL PASS >> 3C* = Pre-emptive >> P** = 30+ seconds >> >>How do you rule? I think rolling the result back to 3C is obvious. I think what becomes interesting about such hands is when one tries to apply L12C2 correctly: EW to get "the most favorable result that was likely", while NS get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." I will assume that E has the DA, not the DQ. (there are two DQ's in the hand). For EW, I would rule that a spade lead and a diamond shift (allowing declarer to discard a D on the KS), or a D lead (giving away a D trick) is within reasonable possibility. I would allow declarer to play hearts correctly. However, I would not allow her to guess trumps, and so would rule losing 1S, 1H, 1D, and 3C for down 2. Do you think that it is within the range of "likely" that N plays a C honor on the 1st C off of the board? For NS, I would still allow the spade lead, but now I would allow for the possibility that N plays the KC on the 1st club lead from dummy, helping declarer pick up the trumps. Thus I would give NS the score for 3C, down 1. --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 06:59:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:59:13 +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 GAA10714 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:59:06 +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 PAA05329 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:18:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109150549.0069873c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:05:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <36451D36.E0C17BD7@pinehurst.net> References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 PM 11/7/98 -0500, Nancy's wrote: >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that >players stated they would not return if this player was there???? Nancy Of course, and they are disciplined appropriately. But we have had far more players who are generally popular and overwhelmingly well-liked but who, nevertheless, occasionally have had bad days on which they violated precepts of good behavior (by, say, gloating over a good result) whom nobody in the club would wish to see disciplined, notwithstanding the fact that the ACBL's ZT policy would *require* us to do so. Nancy seems to be suggesting that the only alternative to zero tolerance for inappropriate behavior is absolute tolerance of any inappropriate behavior under any circumstances whatsover. This is analogous to the arguments of those who would like to see anyone who drives with any amount of alcohol in his blood jailed, and support their position with "We've all seen drivers who were so drunk as to clearly constitute a menace to others." This kind of "if it isn't white it must be black" rhetoric is pure sophistry. Only a small percentage of real-life violations of the ZT policy come under the heading of "so obnoxious that players... would not return..." Perhaps in Heaven one can find bridge clubs where there is no practical need to distinguish between constant or egregiously obnoxious behavior and occasional or mildly obnoxious behavior, but here on Earth it makes sense to make the distinction, refusing to tolerate the former but showing some appropriate level of tolerance for the latter. Let he who is without sin... 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 Nov 10 07:21:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:21:15 +1100 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 HAA10866 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:21:09 +1100 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.122]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981109202442.HZCU2261@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 20:24:42 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:16:04 -0600 Message-ID: <01be0c1d$c74008c0$74c7420c@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: Eric Landau >Perhaps in Heaven one can find bridge clubs where there is no practical >need to distinguish between constant or egregiously obnoxious behavior and >occasional or mildly obnoxious behavior, but here on Earth it makes sense >to make the distinction, refusing to tolerate the former but showing some >appropriate level of tolerance for the latter. > >Let he who is without sin... Well stated Eric. Zero Tolerance does not mean Zero Intolerance. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 07:22:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:22:26 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f80.hotmail.com [207.82.250.186]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA10887 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:22:21 +1100 Received: (qmail 11990 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 1998 20:25:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19981109202553.11989.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:25:51 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.89] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Intentional Convention Disruption (was: Lille Appeal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:25:51 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> > 2. intentional convention disruption >> >> This one confuses and worries me. As far as I can recall, >>"convention disruption" was legalese for "they forgot their >>agreements", and the suggested penalty was to be removal of that >>convention from the offenders' system. So, "intentional convention >>disruption" must mean...intentionally forgetting agreements...no, >>that makes no sense...try intentionally bidding contrary to their >>agreements...which is *specifically allowed* by the Laws. > >Yes, but playing very disrupting conventions, and THEN getting them >intentionally wrong seems to me indeed to be contrary to what must be >good for bridge. Yes. I would hate to have to draw the "very disrupting conventions" line, though. Brown Sticker, maybe? I don't think that gets Ghestem, or Ekrans 2D, or wk 2's on 3-9, often 5 cards at favourable, though. SO's are given the licence to regulate conventions. Does that give them the right to say that you can't psych them (get them intentionally wrong)? I don't know, but the ACBL, at least, thinks so. I also don't want the responsibility of defining when "deviating from one's agreements" becomes "having new agreements (possibly illegal)". I think it should be somewhere farther up than once in partnership's life - and lower than once a month (or 20 sessions, or). >Playing some two-level opening 4-10 is very >disruptive, but not against the rules. Opening the same thing on a >0-count is not something additional the opponents should need to >suffer. Ok, what about the regulation that you can't psych conventional calls? Is that legal? Effective? It requires a good definition of "conventional call"; and I really don't want to get into the 2NT asking, not promising anything over wk 2 again :-). >Getting the same conventions unintentionally wrong is also bad. If >you play something difficult, at least you should make the effort to >play it correctly. > What about during learning times? Almost everyone is going to get certain conventions wrong once while just having it added to the system, whether it be 4-way transfers or responses to the relay after having shown a 4432 10-12 count. I believe that you should make the effort, and you should get punished for repeated "forgettings", but if you punish for every mistake, you are penalizing "mistaken bid", which again gets us into confronting the Laws. Also, I see a difference between unintentionally mangling a constructive convention and unintentionally mangling a preemptive convention. I would hate to draw that line, too. I also believe that none of this has any bearing on the appeal this thread started from. Opener made two bids, the first natural, the second completely anti-system (as made out from the "doesn't exist" comment). If a player of any experience can't work out that opener psyched one of eir two calls, likely the first one, then it's time they learned. We all had to learn how to defend against the chinese finesse, didn't we? And sometimes it still catches us, no? Well, a psych (according to L40D) is as legal a bridge tactic as a chinese finesse - and equally likely to backfire on the operator. IMHO, 2C in this situation is "I psyched, pd - I really have a long club suit"; general bridge knowledge tells me that the only reason for disobeying a "must pass" order, in a situation where pass is likely to get a complete top, is that opener doesn't have eir bid (though depending on the system, I might warn them that one could consider that a way to make an otherwise impossible weak 2C opener; and we'll watch them very carefully. I'd be much happier if opener had run out to a suit e could have opened naturally). Yet again raising more problems then answers, I know. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 07:49:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:49:17 +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 HAA11007 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:49:11 +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, 9 Nov 1998 12:53:15 -0800 Message-ID: <364756E9.214398BF@home.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:56:09 -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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. How can it be? Even if they ruled "ME", the infraction didn't render it impossible to determine a result (EW's incompetence makes it difficult, but L12 doesn't allow an "artificial" score on that basis). The decision should then have been to adjust to EW +400 as the best *this* EW was likely to achieve, and maybe NS -430 as the worst at all probable (That *this* EW would defend 2DX for +500 is completely inprobable). > The statement > "Does not exist" was non-responsive. According to "active ethics" yes, but that is not part of the "conditions of contest" at the WC. > In fact, the 2C _did_ exist, on the > table, and the AC appears to have had reasonable grounds for believing that > prior partnership experience in this and related sequences Where do you deduce that the AC had "reasonable grounds" to beleive that? The evidence was that S had *never* psyched in this 6 year partnership and that N had on occasion but *never* a 1NT on a balanced yarborough, and in fact considered it "mad" and "crazy" without a run-out suit. > had given North > a strong basis for believing that 2C was a runout The bid itself seems to have lead to this suspicion > with a psych. By a player who never psyched before?? Wouldn't the evidence rather support a beleif that S had an off-beat balanced hand with long clubs hand short on defense, rather than an outright psyche? If so, wouldn't it have been even more damaging to tel this to EW, having to change the story yet again after the redouble? Of course N could have volunteered after 2C that he guesses it's long C and less than a usual 1NT opening, had he known that EW were beginners, but why should he expect that in the bidding of the very first hand against them?? Furthermore, Since S was capable of a "double-psyche" what abt if she made a "triple-psyche"? 1NT (X) XX (P) 2C* (P) P (X) XX** (2NT) P (P) X*** * "long clubs,lacking defense". ** "Oh, now it's *short* clubs and a weak hand" *** "Ooooops, pard got you there. She psyched the psyche and has a normal 1NT opening, possibly with a doubleton club" How do you rule now when EW go for -800? According to this AC's ruling, can there be ME when NS follows the AC's principles,as well as when they do not? > If so, he > had a clear duty to share this information, regardless of the experience > level of the opponents. His failure to do so constituted MI. The operative word here is the first one - "IF". If this were a courtroom argument I would raise for the defense and state "Objection - assumes facts not in evidence". From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 07:52:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:52:27 +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 HAA11035 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:52:17 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA22110; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:55:42 -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 rma022028; Mon Nov 9 14:54:57 1998 Received: by har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0BF9.2C8309A0@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:54:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0BF9.2C8309A0@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael Farebrother'" Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:27:42 -0500 Encoding: 96 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope Michael and others do not believe that I am unaware of the 49th parallel. There are other cultural parallels between Les Etats Unis y Canada. A distaste for strong authoritarian central government would appear to be one of them. The independence of provincial governments would seem to be the envy of the most ardent right wing states rights advocates in the states. Both nations have been faced with separatism to further local cultural and economic matters...we just got around to ours 130 or so years earlier. I rather suspect neither Parti Quebecois nor Credit Social voters would like to see a strong monarchial government supplant the commonwealth derivative of a constitutional one. Perhaps there's nary a Tory that would venture that far. While our histories differ somewhat, we are both populated by the descendants of those free spirits willing to leave the comforts of the established civilisation to strike out anew in a frontier land. In addition to sharing a border that has never been sullied by military restraints and a love for democracy that has helped to make us each other's staunch allies, we have a great degree of economic interdependence. Letting matters be governed as close to the people as possible seems to be a common trait, not one that divides us. Thus the tendency to prefer less decision by fiat by a TD appears to have some basis throughout the two largest nations in the ACBL. I will leave discourse on political tendencies south of the Rio Grande or on Bermuda to wiser heads. :-) Craig ---------- From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 12:15 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties >From: Craig Senior >It may also relate to the degree of training and clarity of national >authority interpretations found in the "old world". At lower levels >at least in the ACBL, the quality of the average TD ruling and >education in Law may be called at best uneven. Many have been >selected for their willingness to serve cheap or free or for their >ability with a coffeepot. Agreed, unfortunately. Personally, I *know* that there are certain regulations, important ones even, that won't be enforced, so it's not worth bothering calling the TD (they probably don't even know that they exist). And unfortunately, two of the best TD's in this area retired last year. I believe that we don't, as a rule, want discretionary power in TD's hands because too many of them don't use the non-discretionary power correctly. How about making TD's more responsible for their own actions by having a good, publicized complaint and commendation mechanism, and C&E's? Or a periodic review exam? I know it isn't reasonable to have ACBL-wide director's clinics like you can in most European countries, but can't we set up those clinics and bring them to places other than NABC's? (i.e. at least one regional a year in each area? - AK and HI, YT and NWT possibly excepted) However: > Your cultural points are also quite valid I believe, at least on >the >ACBL side of the pond. and: >From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] > > My hypothesis is that this reflects a cultural >difference, in that Americans are generally more distrustful of authority. >It was, after all, against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Crown >that we rebelled in the first place, and the entire structure of our >government is predicated on the notion of limited governmental authority. I don't remember that. We quietly, calmly asked the Crown to give us local authority over our lands, and 100 odd years later (after asking a Crown corporation to give us more lands several times), to give us autonomy. And the entire structure of our government is predicated on strong federalism and close harmony between federal and provincial governments (oh, and getting a French-speaking Prime Minister). :-) but please be careful with generalities USA<=>ACBL. There's a significant minority out here who aren't. And we have a *very* different cultural history. Sorry for confusing you :-). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 07:55:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:55:02 +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 HAA11071 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:54:56 +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, 9 Nov 1998 12:58:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36475841.D5B6EABD@home.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:01:53 -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: On-line alerts References: <3.0.1.32.19981109105757.0071beec@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > Perhaps OKBridge (or some other on-line provider) could be convinced to > experiment with doing away with alerts, announcements and Q&A disclosure > altogether. > > Pairs would be required to provide opponents with a fairly complete summary > of their methods, at about the level of detail of, say, a WBF convention > card, and that would be it. No alerts or explanations of any kind during > play. Methods could not be changed during an event. > > I'd bet it would be popular. It might be reasonably popular at mid to mid-high levels of F2F bridge, but not at OKB or similar where pick-up partnerships and short sessions are the norm. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 08:23:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:23:30 +1100 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 IAA11237 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:23:24 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA05587 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:26:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005500; Mon Nov 9 15:26:31 1998 Received: by har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0BFD.9AE3BBC0@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:25:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0BFD.9AE3BBC0@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: BLML Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:03:42 -0500 Encoding: 103 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard, I just want to make clear that I am speaking mainly of club game, unit game and some smaller sectional TD's. I recognise that the ACBL has (finally) substantially improved the level of training for those who direct for a living. Those who get a free play or a few dollars a session get little or nothing in the way of guidance beyond Brian's Ruling the Game column if they read the Bulletin and perhaps what a few pick up from this list. Yet they are in charge of games involving far more tables of bridge than the better trained folk at higher levels. Some of these club level directors are really awful, some make a real effort to approximate the quality you might find a regional even if they must do it on their own hook. The majority are in between. Granting greater discretionary powers to someone who cannot handle a penalty card or LOOT with aplomb and accuracy (let alone a hesitation-related UI situation) is unwise. Craig ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 1:04 PM To: Michael Farebrother; BLML Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties inserts, no snips -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother >>From: Craig Senior > >>It may also relate to the degree of training and clarity of national >>authority interpretations found in the "old world". At lower levels >at >least in the ACBL, the quality of the average TD ruling and >education >in Law may be called at best uneven. Many have been >selected for their >willingness to serve cheap or free or for their >ability with a >coffeepot. An ongoing program of field staff training exists throughout ACBLand. Gary Blaiss has made it a priority to raise the level of our staff, both in the area of professionalism (laws) and public relations (table presence, selling, player-director relationships). Yes some problems still exist. Yes there is some uneveness. But the level of training and performance has certainly changed for the positive since I started working as a TD. >Agreed, unfortunately. Personally, I *know* that there are certain >regulations, important ones even, that won't be enforced, so it's not >worth bothering calling the TD (they probably don't even know that >they exist). It is unfair to make these generalizations unless you can substantiate them. It may be your 'opinion' that a regulation won't be enforced, but not calling the TD is certainly NOT the way to handle things. I know of no TD who would not listen to, evaluate, and correct valid complaints you may have concerning ACBL regulations. >And unfortunately, two of the best TD's in this area >retired last year. They may not have been as good as you thought. One of the tasks of senior TDs and TD Field Supervisors is to train and prepare talented individuals to fill the voids created by retirements, resignations, dismissals, and increased needs. >I believe that we don't, as a rule, want discretionary power in >TD's hands because too many of them don't use the non-discretionary >power correctly. Larger sectionals, all regionals, and NABCs include senior field staff. NO discretionary decision is made without a number of staff members consulting with those senior staffers. Again, you may believe what you are writing, but that does not make it fact. >How about making TD's more responsible for their own actions by >having a good, publicized complaint and commendation mechanism, and >C&E's? Or a periodic review exam? I know it isn't reasonable to >have ACBL-wide director's clinics like you can in most European >countries, but can't we set up those clinics and bring them to places >other than NABC's? (i.e. at least one regional a year in each area? - >AK and HI, YT and NWT possibly excepted) The PTDA (Professional Tournament Directors Association) recognizes top TDs each year at the summer NABC. Each TD in the weekly mailings from Memphis receives copies of commendations and complaints that are generated in the field. Any complaint is addressed, responded to, and corrected. TDs repeatedly generating complaints or problems are suspended or dismissed. okay, I did snip the rest about the Crown colonies :)) thanks for letting me vent Michael. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 08:47:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:47:23 +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 IAA11354 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:47:13 +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 RAA09698 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:06:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109165356.00712180@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 16:53:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 2-part question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981109021551.009c9100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:15 AM 11/9/98 +0100, Anton wrote: >At 11:31 08-11-98 -0600, you wrote: >>You are a player, holding in the south chair: >> >> Q 9 7 2 >> K 9 3 >> A T 5 4 >> J 5 >> >>Game All >> >> E S W N >> 1C P 3C* P >> P ? >> 3C* = Pre-emptive > >as player i D. that looks rather standard to me (i hope) Double is a normal but less than clear-cut action. Pass is certainly an LA. >>You are the director adjudicating this problem: >> >> A J T 8 3 >> Q 2 >> K 8 7 >> A K 8 >>4 K 6 5 >>T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 >>J 3 2 Q 9 6 >>T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 >> Q 9 7 2 >> K 9 3 >> Q T 5 4 >> J 5 >>Game All >> E S W N >> 1C P 3C* P** >> P X P 4S >> ALL PASS >> 3C* = Pre-emptive >> P** = 30+ seconds >> >>How do you rule? >> >> >As TD you have to question what the 30+ pause gives for information. >You know from bidding you probably have about enough for game and from >thinking, probably your partner has a problem describing his hand. >The first information is legal, the second not. >So i would adjust (to some 3C contract going down i presume) and send >offenders to AC. >Perhaps i am a bit too simle minded? I think so. Why should you "know", or even think, that you have enough for game? All you know from the opponents bidding (assuming they know what they're doing) is that they don't have enough for game -- that doesn't mean you do! >A better question should perhaps be, what does the AC with this problem. Adjust back to 3C. Even on the first hand. 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 Nov 10 08:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:54:37 +1100 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 IAA11406 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:54:27 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA18880; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:57:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018791; Mon Nov 9 15:57:16 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0C01.C7984BA0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0C01.C7984BA0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:52:50 -0500 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The occasionally rude bridge player is not threatening the lives of everyone he comes near. The alcohol impaired driver is. We do not need Zero tolerance for peccadilloes in bridge...enforcing the laws with common sense would suffice. The drunk driver is another kettle of fish. At a minimum he must be stopped from any further driving in his impaired condition, and strongly deterred from continuing such potential suicidal or homicidal conduct. There are others measures than imprisonment available...a fine and a rehab program are probably superior in many cases, with a license suspension or revocation available for any repetition. But this is an example of a true Zero Tolerance situation, mandated by the consequences of failure to aggressively enforce the law. If you have ever seen the mangled wreckage, both human and automotive that drunk driving (and reckless driving even when not impaired) can produce, perhaps a visit to the local hospital emergency room and a good size automotive body shop might be a sobering experience. No offence intended...but you have stepped on a corn with your choice of example, and should I let it pass I would feel responsible if any on list should suffer misadventure by letting driving while impaired appear to be condoned. ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 3:05 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties At 11:25 PM 11/7/98 -0500, Nancy's wrote: >Have you had a player in your club or tournament who was so obnoxius that >players stated they would not return if this player was there???? Nancy Of course, and they are disciplined appropriately. But we have had far more players who are generally popular and overwhelmingly well-liked but who, nevertheless, occasionally have had bad days on which they violated precepts of good behavior (by, say, gloating over a good result) whom nobody in the club would wish to see disciplined, notwithstanding the fact that the ACBL's ZT policy would *require* us to do so. Nancy seems to be suggesting that the only alternative to zero tolerance for inappropriate behavior is absolute tolerance of any inappropriate behavior under any circumstances whatsover. This is analogous to the arguments of those who would like to see anyone who drives with any amount of alcohol in his blood jailed, and support their position with "We've all seen drivers who were so drunk as to clearly constitute a menace to others." This kind of "if it isn't white it must be black" rhetoric is pure sophistry. Only a small percentage of real-life violations of the ZT policy come under the heading of "so obnoxious that players... would not return..." Perhaps in Heaven one can find bridge clubs where there is no practical need to distinguish between constant or egregiously obnoxious behavior and occasional or mildly obnoxious behavior, but here on Earth it makes sense to make the distinction, refusing to tolerate the former but showing some appropriate level of tolerance for the latter. Let he who is without sin... 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 Nov 10 08:57:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:57:12 +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 IAA11439 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:57:06 +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 RAA10217 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:16:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109170349.00707334@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:03:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <364660B6.8C8726D1@pinehurst.net> References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> <3.0.5.32.19981108224351.009c7e00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:25 PM 11/8/98 -0500, Nancy's wrote: >I asked the question to find out if people have had the problem and how they >dealt with it. We have had the problem here, and people are afraid of the >trouble maker and tend to overlook the bad behavior. Some of the lower ranking >Tournament (as opposed to clubs ) are also reluctant to take any kind of >action against the perpetrators, most stating nothing will happen to them >anywasy. That's why I like Zero Tolerance. It gives everyone the opportunity >to protect themselves against this type of person. Like the speed limit sign >on the highway.... You break the rules, you pay the fine!! Nancy Where is that highway? Wherever I've been, everyone breaks the rules while only the most flagrant or unlucky pay the fine. If everyone who ever drove 1 MPH over the speed limit was pulled off by the police and written a summons, our highways (and our traffic courts) would be brought to a standstill and nobody would ever get where they were trying to go. If we had ZT for speeders, we'd all be in jail. Bridge players who go through life without ever violating the ACBL's ZT rules are as common as drivers who go through life without ever exceeding the posted speed limit. Even the traffic police know the difference between mild and flagrant violations. 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 Nov 10 09:14:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:14:55 +1100 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 JAA11580 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:14:41 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811092214.JAA11580@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:18:11 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA176359889; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:18:09 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:18:09 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 06, 1998 11:42:20 AM 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 Michael S. Dennis: > >It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement >"Does not exist" was non-responsive. Please provide a ruling for the following case: S W N E 1NT X XX pass 2C* pass pass Whatever. * alerted by N to E as "S probably has psyched 1NT, I expect her to have less than 10 HCP". S, however, had a minimum 1NT opener with a 6card C suit and E/W get whacked now. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 09:42:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:42:32 +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 JAA11670 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:42:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.74.191] (helo=timberlands.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zd04s-00037g-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:46:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Martin Pool To: Bridge Laws Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:47:39 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <48a28192a9Martin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Pluto 1.09k for RISC OS 3.7 Subject: Procedural Penalties Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to confirm that in Sussex we instituted ZT for the very reasons DWS stated. The desire to inform players & TD's of the disciplinary actions available. Also to support the TD's if they felt they had to issue DP's. I agree that the instructions we have issued to TD's may well conflict with a strict reading of L91 but in practice this does not seem to cause problems. We brief TD's & ask if they are happy to conduct our competitions under ZT. It may well be that they are unaware of possible conflict with L91 but so far no one has objected. Martin Pool (Sussex) -- Martin Pool From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 10:47:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:47:25 +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 KAA11861 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:47:13 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19358; 9 Nov 98 15:50 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 7 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 Nov 1998 12:23:02 PST." Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:50:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811091550.aa19358@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >My interpretation was the same as Mike's and Marvin's. If I had to > >determine the intent of the authors of Law 7 just from reading the > >Laws, I'd still be convinced that L7B isn't supposed to apply to what > >happens after the cards are returned to the board. > > Fortunately [or not, depending on your point of view!] we don't have > to use any such method of interpretation when the Law is clear and > unambiguous. Well, the dispute is about what is meant by "after play" in L7B2, and nobody has yet convinced me that "forever" is unambiguously the correct interpretation. (Question: If I play a match in a Swiss event, and the directors then assign us to the same table for the next match, as often happens, do I have to call the director and ask his permission to take the previous opponents' cards out of the board and reshuffle? Wouldn't that be a clear and unambiguous consequence of Law 7 under this interpretation?) Given that I still believe there is more than one possible interpretation, it makes sense to try to work out the authors' intent. Here's another argument to support my contention that my interpretation is a reasonable one. Suppose we just take out all the headings in Law 7 and run the whole text together: When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards. During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy's cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director. Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table. If you try to read this, it doesn't really make any sense unless you realize that some of the sentences are supposed to take place at a specific time, even though this isn't explicitly stated. For example, "Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position." When is this supposed to happen? This sentence doesn't include any clues like "After play ceases" to tell us when. If we read Law 7 as simply a collection of independent rules, we'd have to conclude that the Laws of Bridge don't say when this action is supposed to happen. But I don't think that's the case. I'm not a linguistics expert, but I do believe that, in English writing (as well as other languages), information is conveyed to the reader not just by the words used but also by the form, or structure, in which they appear. And, to me, the form of Law 7 conveys the information that several things are to happen in sequence, and that therefore the second sentence of L7B2 should be read in that context, and not interpreted as a sentence that can be torn out of the rest of the Law and read all by itself. To sum up this rather convoluted argument: I don't think sentences can necessarily be removed from their context and interpreted by themselves---that's not how the English language works. Now, with something like the Laws where things are supposed to be expressed with great precision, perhaps the language *should* be written so that meanings don't depend on context. But I don't think that was the case here. Certainly, as I tried to explain before, the wording of L7C seems to indicate that the authors intended for a different rule to apply to the period after the cards have been returned than before---although you're right that parts of L7B or L7C could have been added later by someone else who didn't bother to reread the whole Law to see whether the addition caused any problems. > If you want logic to support interpretation then how about this: if > your cards are in the wrong slot [even one of them] you will be > considered to have committed an infraction. Do you really want *any* > method that allows your opponents to touch your cards at any time? I > don't. I don't see how this is relevant. If the problem is that an opponent may look at my cards and then put one of them back into the wrong slot, why would this be less of a problem if I gave my permission? (As long as I or my partner is present at the table.) Unless I made a policy of always refusing permission, that is . . . > >In either case, I think this should be clarified in the next revision > >of the Laws. > > I think they are perfectly clear: however, changing the headings would > be a good idea. Note that I didn't refer to the headings at all when I made my argument. I argued entirely from the wording of the laws. So I still think clarifying the wording would be a good idea. Note also that I'm not the only one who has read Law 7 and come up with my interpretation. Several intelligent people have read it and thought it meant the same thing I did. Also, I think (hope) I provided a pretty good explanation of why my reading of the Law is different from yours. So can you really say the Law is "perfectly clear" to everyone, to the point that there's no reason to ask for a clearer rewording? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 11:08:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:08:40 +1100 Received: from farida (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA11960 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:08:29 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zd1Q9-0002FX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:12:33 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981110010829.009c45b0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:08:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: 2-part question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981109165356.00712180@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981109021551.009c9100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <01be0b3d$99620100$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:53 09-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:15 AM 11/9/98 +0100, Anton wrote: > >>At 11:31 08-11-98 -0600, you wrote: >>>You are a player, holding in the south chair: >>> >>> Q 9 7 2 >>> K 9 3 >>> A T 5 4 >>> J 5 >>> >>>Game All >>> >>> E S W N >>> 1C P 3C* P >>> P ? >>> 3C* = Pre-emptive >> >>as player i D. that looks rather standard to me (i hope) > >Double is a normal but less than clear-cut action. Pass is certainly an LA. > Wll, perhaps i may make some remarks. In the first place there wasnt any mention of hesitation in this case. Pass of my PD in this case looks rather inviting for a D from me (especially if 1C can be 2+. I dont think you win a lot by defending 3C, but in pairs, i admit it looks a bit 50-50. In teams D is fairly automatic. After the hesitation I dont think the D will be passed before the eyes of the TD, i said that and you agree, so no problem there, although i know lots of (good ) players who also D after the pause :) Perhaps they need more explanation of the rules. They have a D without pause and think that the pause doesnt matter if P paused or not. regards, anton >>>You are the director adjudicating this problem: >>> >>> A J T 8 3 >>> Q 2 >>> K 8 7 >>> A K 8 >>>4 K 6 5 >>>T 7 6 5 A J 8 4 >>>J 3 2 Q 9 6 >>>T 7 6 4 3 Q 9 2 >>> Q 9 7 2 >>> K 9 3 >>> Q T 5 4 >>> J 5 >>>Game All >>> E S W N >>> 1C P 3C* P** >>> P X P 4S >>> ALL PASS >>> 3C* = Pre-emptive >>> P** = 30+ seconds >>> >>>How do you rule? >>> >>> >>As TD you have to question what the 30+ pause gives for information. >>You know from bidding you probably have about enough for game and from >>thinking, probably your partner has a problem describing his hand. >>The first information is legal, the second not. >>So i would adjust (to some 3C contract going down i presume) and send >>offenders to AC. >>Perhaps i am a bit too simle minded? > >I think so. Why should you "know", or even think, that you have enough for >game? All you know from the opponents bidding (assuming they know what >they're doing) is that they don't have enough for game -- that doesn't mean >you do! > >>A better question should perhaps be, what does the AC with this problem. > >Adjust back to 3C. Even on the first hand. > > >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 > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 11:14:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:14:23 +1100 Received: from falcon.glas.apc.org (falcon.glas.apc.org [193.124.5.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA11987 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:14:15 +1100 Received: from mail.glas.apc.org([193.124.5.37]) (2994 bytes) by falcon.glas.apc.org via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:inet_zone_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:18:12 +0300 (WSU) (Smail-3.2.0.103 1998-Oct-9 #3 built DST-Oct-20) Received: from glasnet.ru(src addr [194.154.91.99]) (2654 bytes) by mail.glas.apc.org via sendmail with P\:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:18:09 +0300 (WSU) (Smail-3.2.0.96 1997-Jun-2 #11 built DST-Aug-25) Message-ID: <36478608.D14D03F1@glasnet.ru> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:17:12 +0300 From: Stefanie Rohan Reply-To: slrohan@glasnet.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 11A References: <364F88A7.28A0@wanadoo.fr> <365084C9.1B72@wanadoo.fr> <36473429.3A17CD45@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all...it's been awhile! Herman De Wael wrote: > If the attention is drawn to the revoke, and the TD is not summoned, > then indeed I would apply L11a. > > If the attention is not drawn to the revoke, I would not like to do so, > although I would not know how to go around L11a. The problem here seems to be Law11A itself. Does it apply after an irregularity or after attention has been called to an irregularity? It seems to me that it must be the latter. Law 9 discusses a sequence of events: first calling attention to an irregularity, and then calling the director. So in L11A, I interpret 'before summoning the director' to refer to the time between the calling of attention and the summoning of the director; presumably the director would not be summoned if attention had not been drawn to an irregularity. Perhaps the scope of Law 11 needs to be spelled out. If L11 means what I believe it to mean, then in Herman's second case you would not have to 'get around' it at all. > However, if the -very- experienced declarer would let me know that he > had willingly NOT drawn attention to the revoke he had noticed, knowing > he could benefit, I would not find it difficult to apply L11a : "any > action" could certainly include the action of NOT drawing attention. Well, L9A2a reads 'may call attention' and the Scope of the Laws says that the failure to do something [that a player *may* do] is not wrong. It seems to me that 'not wrong' implies 'not subject to penalty'. If this is the case, then the player's knowledge that e could benefit would not be relevant. > OTOH, we are quite clear that it is all right NOT to draw attention to a > (suspected) revoke before this becomes established. Or after it becomes established, for that matter. > Surely we are not considering applying L11A here ! The applicability of L11A should not be a matter of opinion. We really need to establish whether it applies *only* after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 11:22:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:22:27 +1100 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 LAA12047 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:22:19 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.21] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zd1aG-0000zz-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:23:01 +0000 Message-ID: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:25:37 -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 Thomas wrote: >According to Michael S. Dennis: >> >>It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement >>"Does not exist" was non-responsive. > >Please provide a ruling for the following case: > >S W N E >1NT X XX pass >2C* pass pass Whatever. > > >* alerted by N to E as "S probably has psyched 1NT, I expect her >to have less than 10 HCP". S, however, had a minimum 1NT opener >with a 6card C suit and E/W get whacked now. One would need to understand exactly how it was that East-West "got whacked" before one could give a complete ruling. But in terms of what North-South have done, the position seems clear enough. North has overstepped the bounds of "full disclosure" by some distance, in that he has presented his opponent with a conjecture instead of with information about his partnership agreements. So, whatever one does with the score on the board, one might readily stick NS with a penalty in this regard; and if North's conjecture turned out to be false, one might have a great deal of sympathy with EW when it came to assessing the actions that led to them "getting whacked". In the actual case, what NS did was inadequate in both legal and (actively?) ethical terms. It is, as Michael has pointed out, nonsense to say that 2C "does not exist", for this is both false (since it did) and unhelpful (since it failed to convey the nature of the partnership agreement). The full explanation of 2C that ought to have been given by both North and South in Lille is on the following lines [stated from South's point of view for convenience]: "I am systemically mandated to pass here if I have a balanced 11-13, or a hand that I was prepared to treat as a balanced 11-13 when I opened. Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. My 2C bid systemically says nothing about the kind of hand that I might have instead, nor does our partnership experience provide any indication of the type of hand my partner may expect." That way, everyone at the table would have known (as EW were entitled to know) that South was "on her own", and that "general bridge knowledge" was the order of the day. I have not followed this thread closely, but at some point there appeared to be a suggestion that East on the actual deal had "fielded" her partner's "psychic" penalty double of a weak no trump by passing 2NT. Bobby Wolff's comment on this notion was a great deal more restrained than mine would have been. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 12:46:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:46:58 +1100 Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (firewall-user@falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA12332 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:46:53 +1100 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id MAA02452; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:37:59 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma002334; Tue, 10 Nov 98 12:37:35 +1100 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.36.71]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA27554 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:37:34 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18818; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:46:37 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:35:35 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Claim by defense - OK? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi all, This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. - - Q J - 5 - - KJ - - Q - - 98 - Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is irrational. Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? yoroshiku onegai shimasu (roughly, TIA) -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 13:06:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:06:08 +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 NAA12391 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:05:58 +1100 Received: from default (user-37kbm1a.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.42]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17385 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:09:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109210639.0068a604@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 21:06:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <364756E9.214398BF@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems fair to assume, based on his actions, that North fielded the psych, i.e., judged that his partner's 1nt opening bid was either slightly or substantially below the agreed range. The heart of the matter, then, is whether North's correct guess was based in any important respect on information derived from partnership experience-- information which was not available to EW. Let me repeat: I was not present at the investigation, and have no way of knowing whether the AC's assessment of the facts was correct. But as I read Wolff's writeup, the AC did find that within this partnership, there existed a history of psychic 1nt bids, and that the "impossible" 2-of-a-suit bid had previously been used as a runout. For the sake of discussion, let us take this finding at face value. Then North had, by virtue of prior partnership experience, a strong basis to suspect a psych, above and beyond that which was available from the bidding and general bridge knowledge. It does not matter that previously the psyching had been by North rather than South, nor that North would never have psyched with the actual South hand. The 2C bid conveyed information which he was better-positioned to read, as a result of having done similar things himself with this partner. Such an advantage is not legal. To put it another way, at some point the repeated reliance on the "impossible" 2-of-a-suit in this context establishes a de facto partnership agreement: the bid is no longer impossible but is understood to show a psych. Whether that point had been reached for this particular partnership is a judgement which is best left to the AC's determination. At 12:56 PM 11/9/98 -0800, Jan wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. > >How can it be? Even if they ruled "ME", the infraction didn't render it >impossible to determine a result (EW's incompetence makes it difficult, >but L12 doesn't allow an "artificial" score on that basis). The decision >should then have been to adjust to EW +400 as the best *this* EW was >likely to achieve, and maybe NS -430 as the worst at all probable (That >*this* EW would defend 2DX for +500 is completely inprobable). > >> The statement >> "Does not exist" was non-responsive. > >According to "active ethics" yes, but that is not part of the >"conditions of contest" at the WC. The conditions of contest are irrelevant. North's responsibility under the Laws is to share all relevant information, including that derived from partnership experience. You are right, though, that "active ethics" should not be a factor. >> In fact, the 2C _did_ exist, on the >> table, and the AC appears to have had reasonable grounds for believing that >> prior partnership experience in this and related sequences > >Where do you deduce that the AC had "reasonable grounds" to beleive >that? The evidence was that S had *never* psyched in this 6 year >partnership and that N had on occasion but *never* a 1NT on a balanced >yarborough, and in fact considered it "mad" and "crazy" without a >run-out suit. > >> had given North >> a strong basis for believing that 2C was a runout > >The bid itself seems to have lead to this suspicion > >> with a psych. > >By a player who never psyched before?? Wouldn't the evidence rather >support a beleif that S had an off-beat balanced hand with long clubs >hand short on defense, rather than an outright psyche? If so, wouldn't >it have been even more damaging to tel this to EW, having to change the >story yet again after the redouble? >Of course N could have volunteered after 2C that he guesses it's long C >and less than a usual 1NT opening, had he known that EW were beginners, >but why should he expect that in the bidding of the very first hand >against them?? >Furthermore, Since S was capable of a "double-psyche" what abt if she >made a "triple-psyche"? >1NT (X) XX (P) >2C* (P) P (X) >XX** (2NT) P (P) >X*** > >* "long clubs,lacking defense". >** "Oh, now it's *short* clubs and a weak hand" >*** "Ooooops, pard got you there. She psyched the psyche and has a > normal 1NT opening, possibly with a doubleton club" > >How do you rule now when EW go for -800? According to this AC's ruling, >can there be ME when NS follows the AC's principles,as well as when they >do not? > > >> If so, he >> had a clear duty to share this information, regardless of the experience >> level of the opponents. His failure to do so constituted MI. > >The operative word here is the first one - "IF". If this were a >courtroom argument I would raise for the defense and state "Objection - >assumes facts not in evidence". > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 13:16:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:16:55 +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 NAA12451 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:16:49 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29930; 9 Nov 98 18:20 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:35:35 PST." <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 18:20:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811091820.aa29930@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > hi all, > > This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. > Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J > - 5 > - - > KJ - > - Q > - > - > 98 > - > > Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. > The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 > therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. > How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is > irrational. Well, on any other arrangement of the diamond honors between South and West, it doesn't matter what East leads. (South ruffs a club high.) So, the CQ lead is indicated. However, East has to go through all six combinations mentally to figure this out (and we're assuming he remembers which trumps are outstanding); and based on that, it's hard for me to call S5 anything but "careless". I know that often, instead of going through all the possible combinations, I've thought about just a few of them, or the one I think is most likely based on what's happened up to now. So it certainly seems possible that, if I lost concentration just a little, I might assume it doesn't matter what I lead, and lead the S5. (I've pulled off many bonehead plays like that.) So I rule 1 trick to each side. P.S. I can't imagine why West claimed, except that he/she probably lost count of the hand and thought East was down to two clubs. Well, if West can't count, then there's no reason to assume East is such a perfect counter as to make the S5 play irrational. > Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? If East is an expert and West is a client, I might rule differently. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 13:30:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:30:06 +1100 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 NAA12509 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:29:56 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.1] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zd3YP-00063d-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:29:13 +0000 Message-ID: <002801be0c52$780e3080$013563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:33:14 -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 Thomas wrote: >According to Michael S. Dennis: >> >>It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement >>"Does not exist" was non-responsive. > >Please provide a ruling for the following case: > >S W N E >1NT X XX pass >2C* pass pass Whatever. > > >* alerted by N to E as "S probably has psyched 1NT, I expect her >to have less than 10 HCP". S, however, had a minimum 1NT opener >with a 6card C suit and E/W get whacked now. More thoughts since my previous message. It was a major plank of the NS case at the time that South's 2C "showed a psyche" - in other words, that if South really had opened 1NT on, say, six clubs to the king and a 10 count, prepared to treat her hand as a "real 1NT opening" in the subsequent auction (as, for example, by not passing Stayman), she would still have to pass the redouble. Only South knows for sure whether she would actually have done this - but, if she knew that she would, then this is something that she ought to have told her opponents. By the same token, it is something that North ought to have told his opponents also - if the NS agreement really was that South "had to pass", and that 2C therefore "showed a psyche", EW were entitled to have this explained to them in considerably more detail than "2C does not exist". If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. What Law 40 does not allow you to do is keep the sword concealed up your sleeve. What Wolff did and why he did it is a separate issue from the main one: in my view, NS were certainly guilty of woefully inadequate disclosure. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 13:54:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:54:24 +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 NAA12603 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:54:15 +1100 Received: from modem35.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.163] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zd40Y-0008Gt-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:58:18 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: Intentional Convention Disruption (was: Lille Appeal) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:22:09 -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. "But the principal failing occurred in the sailing And the Bellman, perplexed and distressed, Said he *had* hoped at least, when the wind blew due East, That the ship would *not* travel due West". - Hunting of the Snark. ==================================== > From: Michael Farebrother > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Intentional Convention Disruption (was: Lille Appeal) > Date: 09 November 1998 20:25 > > >From: Herman De Wael > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >> > >> > 2. intentional convention disruption > >> ---------------------\x/----------------\x/-------------------------- > > SO's are given the licence to regulate conventions. Does that give them > the right to say that you can't psych them (get them intentionally > wrong)? I don't know, but the ACBL, at least, thinks so. > > ++++ This question was put to the WBFLC a few years ago. Its official response was that it "would not challenge such a regulation". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 13:54:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:54:24 +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 NAA12604 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:54:16 +1100 Received: from modem35.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.163] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zd40b-0008Gt-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:58:21 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:26:22 -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. "But the principal failing occurred in the sailing And the Bellman, perplexed and distressed, Said he *had* hoped at least, when the wind blew due East, That the ship would *not* travel due West". - Hunting of the Snark. ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Grattan > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L79B > Date: 04 November 1998 00:53 > > Grattan > > I have not been following the thread on L79B closely, but I was > prompted to look up the Law, and having done so, I do not understand > it. The whole of L79 appears to me to be flawed to the point of being > nonsensical. ++ Probably. But people seem to operate it well enough.++ > > L79A - The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four > hands have been returned to the board. > > Well, you and I could agree upon it before taking our cards out of the > board. Unless the deal is passed out, in which case L79 is unlikely to > operate, then the number of tricks won will be 13, and I will accept > any bet at any odds that it will not. > ++ Well yes, but I'm working on the problem to devise a trick that no-one wins ++ > L79B - No increase in score need be granted unless... > > Strictly speaking, no "increase in score" is ever possible, since > there is no such thing as "the score" on any given deal. Rather, there > are two scores which always sum to zero, such as NS +620, EW -620. A > change in respect of the number of tricks won by the declaring side > will neither increase nor decrease "the score". ++ You go too far - it does not say "the score" - it says 'score' and it means what it says. NS may not have their score increased although simultaneously there is no bar to reducing the score of EW if the circumstances occasion it. ++ > > L79C - the word "expiration" means "the act of breathing out". It is > not a synonym for "expiry". ++ Again ? According to O.E.D. expiry is a synonym for two of the meanings of expiration - conclusion and death. What is more O.E.D. does not regard expiration, first appearing around 1550 A.D., as now obsolete. ++ > > None of this (probably) affects the point of the thread on BLML - > which, insofar as I have understood it, appears to me an excellent > example of the way in which this list might well be of lasting benefit > to the conduct of the game. Maybe DWS will read this message after > all. > ++ When I have understood the point of the thread I may not agree with you, but until then let us join in a great Huzza! for the common Ameriglish heritage of language. ++ ~ Grattan ~ p.s. which was the law that needs no revision ? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 14:02:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:02:21 +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 OAA12665 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:02:10 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zd48A-0001QK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:06:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4QuHGEDAI6R2EwPd@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:16:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 7 In-Reply-To: <9811091550.aa19358@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9811091550.aa19358@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> >My interpretation was the same as Mike's and Marvin's. If I had to >> >determine the intent of the authors of Law 7 just from reading the >> >Laws, I'd still be convinced that L7B isn't supposed to apply to what >> >happens after the cards are returned to the board. >> >> Fortunately [or not, depending on your point of view!] we don't have >> to use any such method of interpretation when the Law is clear and >> unambiguous. > >Well, the dispute is about what is meant by "after play" in L7B2, and >nobody has yet convinced me that "forever" is unambiguously the >correct interpretation. (Question: If I play a match in a Swiss >event, and the directors then assign us to the same table for the next >match, as often happens, do I have to call the director and ask his >permission to take the previous opponents' cards out of the board and >reshuffle? Wouldn't that be a clear and unambiguous consequence of >Law 7 under this interpretation?) I don't believe so. There is a new play period and Law 6A applies. Lot of good stuff snipped > >Note also that I'm not the only one who has read Law 7 and come up >with my interpretation. Several intelligent people have read it and >thought it meant the same thing I did. Also, I think (hope) I >provided a pretty good explanation of why my reading of the Law is >different from yours. So can you really say the Law is "perfectly >clear" to everyone, to the point that there's no reason to ask for a >clearer rewording? I don't think that the Law is perfectly clear. IMO I think that provided an opponent is at the table (or the TD) then after play I may look at my own hand only. I have previously been seduced by your argument Adam, but am now of the above opinion. I am not certain however. > > -- Adam > > -- 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 Nov 10 14:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:16:34 +1100 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 OAA12727 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:16:30 +1100 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:22:22 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:22:00 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? 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 Hi Peter, To address your last question first, YES. The =22class of player = involved=22 must be taken into account (see the footnote to laws 69, 70 and 71). In this case, as the North hand is on the table and East can see DQ and CJ, I think it would be irrational to lead the S5. I would still ask East = how the play has gone in the first eleven tricks. If East cannot give a lucid description of the play, I would probably conclude that leading the spade 5 would not be beyond that player either. Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Peter Newman 10/11/98 12:35:35 >>> hi all, This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any = feedback. Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. - - Q J - 5 - - KJ - - Q - - =20 98 - Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the = S5 therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is irrational. Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? yoroshiku onegai shimasu (roughly, TIA) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 14:19:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:19:16 +1100 Received: from farida (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12748 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:18:59 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zd4OV-0006gY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:23:03 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981110041859.009ca1a0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:18:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 10-11-98 +1100, you wrote: >hi all, > >This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. >Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J >- 5 >- - >KJ - >- Q > - > - > 98 > - > >Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. >The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 >therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. >How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is >irrational. >Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? > well, the claim doesnt look awful good to say the least about it. perhaps a lecture about claiming from TD (with beer fee) suits EW. i agree to give NS a trick; E has UI that PD probably has 2 high trumps and a S return isnt obvious at all. I also would advice EW to count trumps, even perhaps give them PP if their level is high enough. regards, anton >yoroshiku onegai shimasu >(roughly, TIA) >-- >Peter Newman >bridge is not a game - it is a way of life > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 14:36:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:36:30 +1100 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 OAA12843 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:36:20 +1100 Received: from nichp166 by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zd4fJ-001b6cC; Mon, 9 Nov 98 22:40 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:39:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 11/10/98 +1100, Peter Newman wrote: >hi all, > >This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. >Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J >- 5 >- - >KJ - >- Q > - > - > 98 > - > >Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. >The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 >therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. >How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is >irrational. >Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? > >yoroshiku onegai shimasu >(roughly, TIA) First of all, when west claims he is required to state his plan before seeing any closed hands. What was that statement? Since you don't mention one I suspect there was none. If west held any of the other possible combinations of the KJ98 it will make no difference what east leads. Does east have some reason to "know" that west holds King/Jack instead of some other combination? Unless west can explain how east would know, before the claim, west's exact holdings then I would rule that the lead of the S5 is at worst careless. E/W don't get to solve the problem double-dummy after the claim. John S. Nichols jnichols@minfod.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 14:52:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:52:45 +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 OAA12940 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:52:39 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-44.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.241]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA17597; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:56:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3647B9A2.F034DC26@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:57:22 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811070502.VAA12721@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <364515A5.1ECBC271@mosquitonet.com> <3.0.5.32.19981108224351.009c7e00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.1.32.19981109170349.00707334@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Exactly, we all know the law is being broken, but should always be prepared to pay the fine if unlucky and get caught or flagrantly break the law. When you see someone pulled over for speeding, you slow down, don't you???? Nancy Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:25 PM 11/8/98 -0500, Nancy's wrote: > > >I asked the question to find out if people have had the problem and how they > >dealt with it. We have had the problem here, and people are afraid of the > >trouble maker and tend to overlook the bad behavior. Some of the lower > ranking > >Tournament (as opposed to clubs ) are also reluctant to take any kind of > >action against the perpetrators, most stating nothing will happen to them > >anywasy. That's why I like Zero Tolerance. It gives everyone the > opportunity > >to protect themselves against this type of person. Like the speed limit sign > >on the highway.... You break the rules, you pay the fine!! Nancy > > Where is that highway? Wherever I've been, everyone breaks the rules while > only the most flagrant or unlucky pay the fine. > > If everyone who ever drove 1 MPH over the speed limit was pulled off by the > police and written a summons, our highways (and our traffic courts) would > be brought to a standstill and nobody would ever get where they were trying > to go. > > If we had ZT for speeders, we'd all be in jail. > > Bridge players who go through life without ever violating the ACBL's ZT > rules are as common as drivers who go through life without ever exceeding > the posted speed limit. Even the traffic police know the difference > between mild and flagrant violations. > > 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 Nov 10 15:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:45:51 +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 PAA13189 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:45:45 +1100 Received: from default (user-37kbm2m.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.86]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13944 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:49:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981109234638.006d048c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:46:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-Reply-To: <9811091820.aa29930@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:20 PM 11/9/98 PST, Adam wrote: >> Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? > >If East is an expert and West is a client, I might rule differently. > I know it's off the track, but I'm intrigued. Why would the expertise of West matter at all? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 16:34:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:34:42 +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 QAA13390 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:34:35 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-104.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.104]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA21966777 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:40:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3647CFD5.DA1C3B0@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:32:05 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There being no statement of claim and the claim being contested in time, the relevant question to be answered is how is W to take the remaining tricks when E leads a spade? The answer is that he is upper cut and that dummy scores the Q. It is not relevant that the obvious play by E is to lead a club if he has one or a diamond if he has one since the claim must hold up against any line of play by E. It is highly improper for W to direct E to not play a suit that dummy can ruff and it can not be presumed that E will find the proper play once the claim is made. The skill of the players has no relevance for the purpose of adjudicating this claim. By virtue of claiming, W claims that the play of E is not relevant. Of course, the point of this exercise is to realize that in this situation, any attempt to claim will result in declarer receiving the maximum number of tricks possible because it does depend on the card lead by partner. And a player that is aware of such things would not claim. And the twist is that if E has only clubs to lead, and if W knows it, he can confidently claim and W gets both of the tricks. Roger Pewick Simon Edler wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > To address your last question first, YES. The "class of player involved" > must be taken into account (see the footnote to laws 69, 70 and 71). > In this case, as the North hand is on the table and East can see DQ and > CJ, I think it would be irrational to lead the S5. I would still ask East how > the play has gone in the first eleven tricks. If East cannot give a lucid > description of the play, I would probably conclude that leading the > spade 5 would not be beyond that player either. > > Regards, > Simon Edler, > Database Administrator, > Information Technology Branch, > Forestry Tasmania > Email: Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au > > >>> Peter Newman 10/11/98 12:35:35 >>> > hi all, > > This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. > Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J > - 5 > - - > KJ - > - Q > - > - > 98 > - > > Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. > The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 > therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. > How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is > irrational. > Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? > > yoroshiku onegai shimasu > (roughly, TIA) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 16:40:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:40:02 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f17.hotmail.com [207.82.250.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA13424 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:39:57 +1100 Received: (qmail 6594 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1998 05:43:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19981110054328.6593.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.134.55 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 1998 21:43:27 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.134.55] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 21:43:27 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" > >In the actual case, what NS did was inadequate in both legal and >(actively?) ethical terms. It is, as Michael [a different Michael - >mdf] has pointed out, nonsense to say that 2C "does not exist", for >this is both false (since it did) It does not exist in our system, not it does not exist at the table. I would have thought that was obvious. >and unhelpful (since it failed to convey the nature of the >partnership agreement). It conveyed the nature of the agreement completely - our agreement is that 2C doesn't exist; it is a non-bid in our system; systemically there is no hand that would open 1NT and bid 2C after X-XX-p. Therefore, he/I have violated our partnership agreement with this bid, as he/I is legally allowed to do. If it didn't make sense to the opponents, they could ask for further explanation, at which point a "full and complete" should be written out. > The full explanation of 2C that ought to have been given >by both North and South in Lille is on the following lines [stated >from South's point of view for convenience]: > >"I am systemically mandated to pass here if I have a balanced 11-13, >or a hand that I was prepared to treat as a balanced 11-13 when I >opened. Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. My 2C bid >systemically says nothing about the kind of hand that I might have >instead, nor does our partnership experience provide any indication >of the type of hand my partner may expect." > Doesn't "The only call we have any agreements on in this situation is 'pass', and that agreement is 'all the time.'" describe the agreement perfectly (and gets written down in significantly less time)? How about "Our system doesn't allow him (me) to do anything but pass." or "He's/I've just violated system" or or "2C is a non-bid in our system" or "2C doesn't exist"? After all, I've already explained 1NT as "11-13 bal", and XX as "forces pass". Where along the line have I gone to "inadequate?" I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe that anyone would construe, at the table, "doesn't exist" as anything but "not only does that call have no systemic meaning, our system has calls for all possible hands fitting the description of previous bids". I've never played with screens - I don't know if 5-line written explanations are the norm, but I don't believe that, either. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 17:06:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:06:07 +1100 Received: from f282.hotmail.com (f282.hotmail.com [207.82.251.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA13524 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:06:00 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by f282.hotmail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA27700 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:09:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mdfarebr@hotmail.com) Message-Id: <199811100609.WAA27700@f282.hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.134.55 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:09:34 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.134.55] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:09:34 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Michael S. Dennis" This is, I think, a very well organized and written description of the problem. >It seems fair to assume, based on his actions, that North fielded the >psych, i.e., judged that his partner's 1nt opening bid was either >slightly or substantially below the agreed range. The heart of the >matter, then, is whether North's correct guess was based in any >important respect on information derived from partnership >experience-- information which was not available to EW. > I'd replace the -- with "and"; isn't psyching frequency still on the WBF card, for example? I had a partnership a while ago (back before the ACBL card lost the "Psych" box) where we psyched frequently. I'm talking on average once a session or so, between the two of us. Now, when the auction lead us to believe that someone was psyching, we knew, from partnership experience, that it was 85% likely (at least) to be partner. OTOH, we checked off "Frequent" in the Psych box, and circled it a couple of times. If the auction lead the opponents to believe that someone was psyching, that it was most likely not partner was available to them through that card. >Let me repeat: I was not present at the investigation, and have no >way of knowing whether the AC's assessment of the facts was correct. >But as I read Wolff's writeup, the AC did find that within this >partnership, there existed a history of psychic 1nt bids, and that >the "impossible" 2-of-a-suit bid had previously been used as a >runout. For the sake of discussion, let us take this finding at face >value. Then North had, by virtue of prior partnership experience, a >strong basis to suspect a psych, above and beyond that which was >available from the bidding and general bridge knowledge. > (I am taking the writup at face value for the duration of this article, at least.) Though, as I've said before, unless I'm much mistaken, a description of a bid as "can't happen" or "doesn't exist" gives EW a strong basis to suspect a psych; enough to make the extra knowledge that N had used this runout before minimal. Remember, also, that N had a strong basis to suspect "no psych" - partner never had, in 6 years of playing together. >It does not matter that previously the psyching had been by North >rather than South, nor that North would never have psyched with the >actual South hand. The 2C bid conveyed information which he was >better-positioned to read, as a result of having done similar things >himself with this partner. Such an advantage is not legal. > >To put it another way, at some point the repeated reliance on the >"impossible" 2-of-a-suit in this context establishes a de facto >partnership agreement: the bid is no longer impossible but is >understood to show a psych. Whether that point had been reached for >this particular partnership is a judgement which is best left to the >AC's determination. > I actually think that the line isn't really drawn or isn't drawn correctly (vis. "as much as you like/as long as you like to psych never"). Once it is drawn (and it's a very hard line to draw) - then yes, the judgement over whether situation X has crossed the line is best left to AC's determination. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 20:09:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:09:32 +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 UAA14287 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:09:26 +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 ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:13:27 -0800 Message-ID: <36480465.E33FD197@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:16:21 -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: Claim by defense - OK? References: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > > hi all, > > This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. > Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J > - 5 > - - > KJ - > - Q > - > - > 98 > - > > Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. > The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 > therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. > How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is > irrational. I'd uphold TD's ruling. If E is a bit careless or lacking concentration the S might be lead. Careless does not equal irrational. > Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? Well, all the way to expert I'd rule that way. At the real top level I might be swayed to change. > yoroshiku onegai shimasu > (roughly, TIA) Doitashe mashta (roughly "you're welcome", but the katakana is probably incorrect) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 20:41:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:41:02 +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 UAA14438 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:40:56 +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 ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:45:01 -0800 Message-ID: <36480BCC.766D6071@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:47:56 -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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19981109210639.0068a604@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Let me repeat: I was not present at the investigation, and have no way of > knowing whether the AC's assessment of the facts was correct. But as I read > Wolff's writeup, the AC did find that within this partnership, there > existed a history of psychic 1nt bids, and that the "impossible" > 2-of-a-suit bid had previously been used as a runout. You must have read a different write-up than I did. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 20:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:55:49 +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 UAA14538 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:55:43 +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 ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:59:48 -0800 Message-ID: <36480F43.389744A0@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 02:02:43 -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: Lille Appeal References: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > The full explanation of 2C that ought to have been given > by both North and South in Lille is on the following lines [stated > from South's point of view for convenience]: > > "I am systemically mandated to pass here if I have a balanced 11-13, > or a hand that I was prepared to treat as a balanced 11-13 when I > opened. Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. My 2C bid > systemically says nothing about the kind of hand that I might have > instead, nor does our partnership experience provide any indication of > the type of hand my partner may expect." And I guess every player gets to bring a private secretary to write all this stuff down on the little note-pad. Let's not forget screens and written explanations were mandated. Let's also not forget that this is a timed event and finally, after the 2 minutes of writing notes with the bidding-tray resting, what kind of UI implications would you not have on a regular basis? So - while I am 100% in favour of full disclosure - there has to be some reality-check as well. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 10 21:46:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:46:54 +1100 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 VAA15011 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:46:39 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811101046.VAA15011@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:50:17 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA285375013; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:50:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:50:12 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> from "David Burn" at Nov 10, 1998 12:25:37 AM 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 David Burn: > >Thomas wrote: >>According to Michael S. Dennis: >>> >>>It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The >statement >>>"Does not exist" was non-responsive. >> >>Please provide a ruling for the following case: >> >>S W N E >>1NT X XX pass >>2C* pass pass Whatever. >> >> >>* alerted by N to E as "S probably has psyched 1NT, I expect her >>to have less than 10 HCP". S, however, had a minimum 1NT opener >>with a 6card C suit and E/W get whacked now. > > >One would need to understand exactly how it was that East-West "got >whacked" before one could give a complete ruling. But in terms of what >North-South have done, the position seems clear enough. North has >overstepped the bounds of "full disclosure" by some distance, in that >he has presented his opponent with a conjecture instead of with >information about his partnership agreements. So, whatever one does >with the score on the board, one might readily stick NS with a penalty >in this regard; and if North's conjecture turned out to be false, one >might have a great deal of sympathy with EW when it came to assessing >the actions that led to them "getting whacked". Yes, that's how I see it, too. So then, why do you demand that, in the case where N's partner has psyched, N should tell opponents that partner has psyched? Did I misunderstand? >In the actual case, what NS did was inadequate in both legal and >(actively?) ethical terms. It is, as Michael has pointed out, nonsense >to say that 2C "does not exist", for this is both false (since it did) No, the bid systematically does not exist. The don't have "no agreement" on that 2C bid, their agreement is that it is anti-systemic to bid 2C because opener always has to pass 1NT XX. Apart from that, it is *normal* with screens that short explanations are written down first and more detailed information will be provided upon request only. Otherwise with screens a board would take 15 minutes, not 8 or 9. (N/S would have to write down your lengthy explanation on both sides of the table) >and unhelpful (since it failed to convey the nature of the partnership >agreement). The full explanation of 2C that ought to have been given >by both North and South in Lille is on the following lines [stated >from South's point of view for convenience]: > >"I am systemically mandated to pass here if I have a balanced 11-13, >or a hand that I was prepared to treat as a balanced 11-13 when I >opened. ok. The explanation that S is mandated to pass 1NT XX had already been provided with the XX. >Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. I disagree, here. That's bridge judgment, not systemic agreement. Apart from that, it is not in accordance with N/S's agreement, which indeed is *not* that opener is denying a balanced 11-13 when s/he runs to 2C, but which is that opener has to pass 1NT XX. *Always*. >My 2C bid >systemically says nothing about the kind of hand that I might have >instead, nor does our partnership experience provide any indication of >the type of hand my partner may expect." The difference between E and W is that, whereas W decided to listen to the explanation to it's full extent, E decided that s/he had been bothered with enough information after "2C systematically does not exist". Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 00:39:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:39:17 +1100 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 AAA17888 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:39:09 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.210] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zdE07-0000F6-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:38:31 +0000 Message-ID: <000601be0caf$f6e0f2a0$d23563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:42:29 -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 [snip] Thomas wrote: > >Yes, that's how I see it, too. >So then, why do you demand that, in the case where N's partner >has psyched, N should tell opponents that partner has psyched? > >Did I misunderstand? I made no such demand. North's duty (and South's) is to tell the opponents: "My partner has violated our systemic agreement, which is that she must pass my redouble. In our partnership experience, this violation has not occurred before, so I do not know with what type of hand my partner has chosen to commit it." He should most certainly not tell the opponents anything such as "my partner has probably psyched" - on what basis, other than general bridge knowledge, does he assess this probability? >No, the bid systematically does not exist. The don't have "no agreement" >on that 2C bid, their agreement is that it is anti-systemic to bid 2C >because opener always has to pass 1NT XX. There may be some confusion here - I agree that the bid "does not exist" in the sense that it would not, for example, be defined in the NS system file, nor described on the convention card. But to use the phrase "does not exist" in talking about a bid that has just come into existence is not helpful. You may think, and I may think, that we would know what an opponent meant if she used the phrase "that bid does not exist" - but, particularly in tournaments between players of different nationalities, one should be very careful about assuming that the opponents will understand a colloquial English phrase. Moreover, the opening bidder clearly does not "always have to pass". If she has psyched, she does not have to pass - and, from what she herself wrote in an earlier message, she might choose not to pass if her 1NT opening was based on a sub-minimum point count with long clubs, a hand that shge was prepared to treat as a 1NT opening until it got redoubled. The difficulty is, as always, that if one judges by the actions of the players and the statements of the players regarding those actions, and by those alone (as one should in my opinion judge), then the evidence is that NS's agreement is in fact: "South must pass only if she has a balanced 11-13; if she has a 2 count, or even a 10 count with long clubs, she may bid." Now, South has said that this is not their agreement, since it would be their agreement only if there were a prior history of such incidents, and I believe her. But what I believe makes no difference - what NS did was exactly what they would have done if they did in fact have the agreement that South would pull a redouble with a psyche, and to rule on that basis seems perfectly sensible. >Apart from that, it is *normal* with screens that short explanations >are written down first and more detailed information will be >provided upon request only. Otherwise with screens a board would take 15 minutes, >not 8 or 9. (N/S would have to write down your lengthy explanation >on both sides of the table) Of course. But in situations where a player is departing from her disclosed methods, she has a duty to take especial care to make it plain to her opponents that this is what she is doing. It simply is not good enough in such a case to write a short and not particuarly helpful comment to one's screen-mate. Whereas in normal circumstances, a short explanation almost always suffices, in these circumstances it does not, and both North and South should have taken the extra time that their opponents needed. >>and unhelpful (since it failed to convey the nature of the partnership >>agreement). The full explanation of 2C that ought to have been given >>by both North and South in Lille is on the following lines [stated >>from South's point of view for convenience]: >> >>"I am systemically mandated to pass here if I have a balanced 11-13, >>or a hand that I was prepared to treat as a balanced 11-13 when I >>opened. > >ok. >The explanation that S is mandated to pass >1NT XX had already been provided with the XX. > >>Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. > >I disagree, here. That's bridge judgment, not systemic agreement. No. It's simply providing the opponents with enough information for them to be able to use their own bridge judgment. It is telling the opponents enough about the system to enable them to understand clearly what is happening. It's doing one's duty as a bridge player. >Apart from that, it is not in accordance with N/S's agreement, >which indeed is *not* that opener is denying a balanced 11-13 when >s/he runs to 2C, but which is that opener has to pass 1NT XX. *Always*. > Nonsense. If that were the case, she would have to pass it with a flat 2 count. > >The difference between E and W is that, whereas W decided to listen >to the explanation to it's full extent, E decided that s/he >had been bothered with enough information after >"2C systematically does not exist". The difference between East and West is probably that West was a sufficiently strong or experienced player to make sense of the inadequate information that South had handed him. East could not handle North's equally inadequate information as well as West could, and became confused by the whole proceedings. That this was partly through her own lack of experience or bridge knowledge, I do not doubt, and it is of course clear that players should not be given redress simply because they are incompetent. But when their incompetence is exacerbated by being given inadequate explanations of a confusing auction, I believe (as did the Appeals Committee) that they are entitled to some protection. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 00:49:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:49:09 +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 AAA17918 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:49:02 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.210] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zdECk-0004Gz-00; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:51:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001301be0cb1$547d6000$d23563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Jan Kamras" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:52:16 -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 Jan wrote: >And I guess every player gets to bring a private secretary to write all >this stuff down on the little note-pad. Let's not forget screens and >written explanations were mandated. Let's also not forget that this is a >timed event and finally, after the 2 minutes of writing notes with the >bidding-tray resting, what kind of UI implications would you not have on >a regular basis? > >So - while I am 100% in favour of full disclosure - there has to be some >reality-check as well. Let's also not forget that in positions where a player has departed completely from her announced system, a short explanation will not suffice to provide anything like full disclosure. I am not in the least moved by the argument that it is "impractical" to write down an explanation such as the one I suggested. It is not - I have seen equally complex explanations written down many times. But even if it were, this would not matter - the overriding duty of NS was to explain what was happening in the context of their methods so that EW had a fair chance to understand the position. This, manifestly, did not happen, and for this NS must take 100% of the blame. The question of UI would obviously not arise in this instance, and should not arise anyway if people played only methods that they knew and could explain to the opponents, because each player would know what his partner was writing down anyway. Of course, if people played only conventions that they could (a) remember and (b) disclose properly, there would be far less legal wrangling of the kind that we all seem to enjoy so much, and the game would be immeasurably the poorer for that. At least, so I assume we believe. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 01:13:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:13:44 +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 BAA18002 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:13:36 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcmhf.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.47]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20099 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:17:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110091359.006d51bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:13:59 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <199811101046.VAA15011@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 11/10/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: > According to David Burn: >>In the actual case, what NS did was inadequate in both legal and >>(actively?) ethical terms. It is, as Michael has pointed out, nonsense >>to say that 2C "does not exist", for this is both false (since it did) > >No, the bid systematically does not exist. The don't have "no agreement" >on that 2C bid, their agreement is that it is anti-systemic to bid 2C >because opener always has to pass 1NT XX. > Let us suppose that in the past 100 or sessions for this partnership, this scenario has occurred 5 or 6 times: one partner has opened 1nt and after 1nt-x-xx-P has bid 2 of a suit "anti-systemically". We will further suppose that in each such instance, the 1nt opener has psyched his opening, in the sense of owning far less than the agreed range of HCP. Then whatever nominal agreements this pair may claim, this "anti-systemic" bid has, in fact, developed into an agreement: it shows a psych. And that information should be shared with the opponents. As I have frequently emphasized, I am not in a position to know the facts upon which the AC ruled. Evaluating this type of situation is very difficult, and depends fundamentally upon the honest cooperation of the pair whose methods are being scrutinized. But the facts of a particular case are less important for the purposes of this forum than developing a consensus around basic principles, IMO. I would hope that we could agree on the following: 1. Players may psych, or field each other's psychs, without penalty, so long as this is done without exploiting information (such as prior partnership experience) which is unavailable to the opponents. 2. At some point, the repeated and consistent reliance on a nominally anti-systemic bid to show a psych becomes a de facto partnership agreement, which must be shared with the opponents. Beyond that point, the explanation "does not exist" provides inadequate protection of the opponents' interests, while that or an equivalent phrase ("we have no agreement") is adequate the first few times this situation arises. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 02:15:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:15:43 +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 CAA18354 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:15:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdFZR-0003Sr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:19:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:29:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > p.s. which was the law that needs no revision ? I am happy with L3. -- 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 Wed Nov 11 02:15:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:15:46 +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 CAA18356 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:15:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdFZV-0003TW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:19:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:26:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> <364756E9.214398BF@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19981109210639.0068a604@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981109210639.0068a604@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >It seems fair to assume, based on his actions, that North fielded the >psych, i.e., judged that his partner's 1nt opening bid was either slightly >or substantially below the agreed range. On a matter of semantics, I understand the word "fielding" to mean judged partner's opening to be outside range using illegal methods, normally a concealed partnership understanding. -- 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 Wed Nov 11 02:26:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:26:47 +1100 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 CAA18409 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:26:30 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811101526.CAA18409@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:30:33 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA042461832; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:30:32 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:30:31 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981110091359.006d51bc@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 10, 1998 09:13:59 AM 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 Michael S. Dennis: > >At 11:50 AM 11/10/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: >> According to David Burn: >>>In the actual case, what NS did was inadequate in both legal and >>>(actively?) ethical terms. It is, as Michael has pointed out, nonsense >>>to say that 2C "does not exist", for this is both false (since it did) >> >>No, the bid systematically does not exist. The don't have "no agreement" >>on that 2C bid, their agreement is that it is anti-systemic to bid 2C >>because opener always has to pass 1NT XX. >> >Let us suppose that in the past 100 or sessions for this partnership, this >scenario has occurred 5 or 6 times: Ah, no, let us suppose reality: opener has always passed 1NT XX ;-). >one partner has opened 1nt and after >1nt-x-xx-P has bid 2 of a suit "anti-systemically". We will further suppose >that in each such instance, the 1nt opener has psyched his opening, in the >sense of owning far less than the agreed range of HCP. Then whatever >nominal agreements this pair may claim, this "anti-systemic" bid has, in >fact, developed into an agreement: it shows a psych. And that information >should be shared with the opponents. I agree with that judgment, of course. It's assumptions are just not in accordance at all with the facts of the Lille case. The Lille situation was the first ever that one of them bid 1NT X XX pass 2-of-a-suit. AFAIK there exists exactly one previous hand where 1NT was psyched in that partnership, but back then the bidding went 1NT X pass 3NT. Don't ask me about opener's hand, I don't know it. >1. Players may psych, or field each other's psychs, without penalty, so >long as this is done without exploiting information (such as prior >partnership experience) which is unavailable to the opponents. > >2. At some point, the repeated and consistent reliance on a nominally >anti-systemic bid to show a psych becomes a de facto partnership agreement, >which must be shared with the opponents. Beyond that point, the explanation >"does not exist" provides inadequate protection of the opponents' >interests, while that or an equivalent phrase ("we have no agreement") is >adequate the first few times this situation arises. I completely agree with that. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 03:06:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:06:52 +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 DAA18471 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:06:45 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-119.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.119]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22342544 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:12:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36486400.9685CCBD@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:04:16 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I first took notice of this case a couple of months ago everything looked so straight forward that I felt that the proper ruling should have been result stands. In the mean time I have found that I have been taken in by the red herring created by the rhetoric. All of the discussion has centered around the ethics of a bid not permitted by system and not alerted/explained as partner has psyched. What seems incomprehensible to me is that there has been no acknowledgement of the fact that it was opener's RHO's penalty PASS that exposed that 'a' psych has been made by someone. Was it opener? Or doubler? Or redoubler? Or perhaps the penalty passer? This alone is enough information for all the parties to derive an assessment of what is going on. This should be the end of the story. Opener's 2C call merely clarifies matters more fully although it entails the risk that there is an inadequate fit in clubs and may cause confusion of all parties. N is entitled to act on inferences available from E's penalty pass and the cards he holds. N's pass of 2C exposes that he believes that his partner has made an off color call.. This information is available to the opponents from the auction and exposes who has psyched. I can find no cause in this instance to condemn the psych of 1N, nor the' psych 2C' call, nor subsequent bidding with one possible exception. I do not think that NS had an agreement about the second redouble in this sequence [being out of bounds as the auction was] but maybe it is reasonable for south to believe that partner would infer that it was. I do not think that it is best to alert a call that does not have an agreement attached to it. I realize that it is the popular stance that players stretch to reveal as much information as conceivable, but to reveal agreements that are not in fact there can cloud the issues and drastically influence the play. I think that S stretched to reveal an agreement that was not there [but was about her hand] but did so because she was not sure and because of the conflict of the different schools of thought and the publicized punishments meted out in the past for failures to reveal 'information' as opposed to agreements. Imo, 2C was natural [north did pass did they not]. Since W had a decidedly suitable hand to pass and was unwilling to pass partner's penalty double of 2C it is a reasonable conclusion that W was not damaged by the alert or failure to alert, which ever in fact happened. If east's double was take out, then EW are using inferior agreements and should be satisfied with what those inferior agreements bring. I think that the alerts and explanations were timely and accurate [the above exception is debatable]. I think that the information that responder suspects an off color bid is solely from east's penalty pass and the cards he holds. Everyone has access to the auction and the other three players are entitled to information only via the bids a player makes [explanations of agreements] - not his speculations resulting from the cards he holds. That any attempt to speculate to the opponents that partner's call was psychic by agreement or a non existent implied agreement could and should be dealt with if it were deceptive and damaged the opponents. I think it is flat out wrong to require a partnership to speculate to the opponents. To do so is to subject them to multiple jeopardy and at the same time reveal their hand not by the bids they make but by the explaining of speculations. That responder may speculate to the nature of opener's call he does so at his own risk. That his hand aids him in that speculation is the result of chance and the opponents are not entitled to that. I find it reprehensible that tournament officials can create something from nothing [an agreement without discussion which is also illegal] and then rule that it was used in an unethical way. It smacks of the bridge lawyering that so many find insidious. David Stevenson wrote: > > I expect you all remember Beate Birr's appeal at Lille after she > psyched a 1NT opening. She wrote it up [since there was no official > record, unlike *every* other appeal from Lille] and it has appeared in > several places, including as an article on RGB. If any of you do not > remember the story then it is on my Bridgepage, specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm > > Bobby Wolff wrote a short comment at the time, and another longer > comment for the ACBL case book. These also appear at the above address. > > This matter was discussed at length on RGB and BLML. A suggestion was > made that it would be nice to ask Bobby Wolff further questions to try > to find out what his position is. I have asked Bobby, and he has agreed > to answer some of my questions for publication. > > If you have questions for Bobby you can put them to me by sending them > to . However, I am not going to ask him > anything couched in an offensive matter. Whatever you may think of what > he did, we will not get a dialogue going by shouting at him. > > This is the first set of questions and answers. > > ---------------------------- > > David Stevenson asked: > > For a start let us consider the non-offending side. I shall come back > to the other side. > > In the Appeal concerning the psyche of 1NT at Lille, there has been > some interest in East's actions. East had eleven HCP, and heard an > 11-13 1NT, a double showing 13+ and a redouble showing 8+. East thus > knows that someone does not have their bid. Even after partner bid > again voluntarily, East did not bid game. > > 1 Did the AC [Appeals Committee] consider whether East was trying to > field his partner's apparent psyche? > > 2 If not, why not? > > 3 Whatever North-South have done, the failure to bid game appears to be > solely East-West's own fault. Do you not consider their actions > subsequent to any infraction rather than consequent? > > 4 Why did East-West not get their table score in view of the fact that > they did not play bridge after the alleged infraction? > > 5 One possible reason for allowing East-West a better score than they > got would be if the AC considered them beginners. Surely this was not > the case in a World Championship? > > ---------------------------- > > Bobby Wolff replied: > > Dear David, > > Quoting Humphrey Bogart's final line from the movie "Casablanca, "This > could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". > > l. No, East was obviously not trying to field her partner's psychic. > She was in outer space, catapulted by her own incompentence and > inexperience, together with the intimidation from her space age > opponents. > > 2. Considering such an impossibilty is exiting the "real" world and > entering one ruled by "what if lawyers" who get their jollies showing > off their intellectuality instead of deciding how to make our game > fairer. I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant > thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission. > To paraphrase the British bridge writer S. J. Simon, we need to strive > in appeals for the best result possible, not the best possible result. > We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse > talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to > create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious > trio of i's: > > 1. intimidation > 2. intentional convention disruption > 3. inactive ethics. > > Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to > be handled in a different way than natural justice. We need to roll up > our sleeves and fight the i's the only way we might have a chance in > order to stop them or at least slow them down. We cannot wait for 100% > evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for > apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be > subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. > And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some > embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not > conforming. > > 3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West > were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the > intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not > responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should > dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to > psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special > ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to > everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious > sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all > the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is > going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and > then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to > say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that > EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten > 20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so > rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering > and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a > way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At > least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather > than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not > even know it or worse not even care. > > 4. Giving them their table score would have been a correct judgment, > but see above. I might have not thought about it at the time or maybe > we wanted to repair their feelings. Either way, Mea Culpa! > > 5. Surely it was the case in a World Championship and will continue to > be, unless some genius finds a better way to stage our events. > > Return cheers (and from Becky), > > Bobby > > PS. Waiting for the next bunch of questions. Thank you for getting > involved!!! > > -- > 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 Nov 11 03:16:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:16:22 +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 DAA18513 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:16:11 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-119.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.119]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22389800 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:21:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36486637.8B8C419E@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:13:43 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I first took notice of this case a couple of months ago everything looked so straight forward that I felt that the proper ruling should have been result stands. In the mean time I have found that I have been taken in by the red herring created by the rhetoric. All of the discussion has centered around the ethics of a bid not permitted by system and not alerted/explained as partner has psyched. What seems incomprehensible to me is that there has been no acknowledgement of the fact that it was opener's RHO's penalty PASS that exposed that 'a' psych has been made by someone. Was it opener? Or doubler? Or redoubler? Or perhaps the penalty passer? This alone is enough information for all the parties to derive an assessment of what is going on. This should be the end of the story. Opener's 2C call merely clarifies matters more fully although it entails the risk that there is an inadequate fit in clubs and may cause confusion of all parties. N is entitled to act on inferences available from E's penalty pass and the cards he holds. N's pass of 2C exposes that he believes that his partner has made an off color call.. This information is available to the opponents from the auction and exposes who has psyched. I can find no cause in this instance to condemn the psych of 1N, nor the' psych 2C' call, nor subsequent bidding with one possible exception. I do not think that NS had an agreement about the second redouble in this sequence [being out of bounds as the auction was] but maybe it is reasonable for south to believe that partner would infer that it was. I do not think that it is best to alert a call that does not have an agreement attached to it. I realize that it is the popular stance that players stretch to reveal as much information as conceivable, but to reveal agreements that are not in fact there can cloud the issues and drastically influence the play. I think that S stretched to reveal an agreement that was not there [but was about her hand] but did so because she was not sure and because of the conflict of the different schools of thought and the publicized punishments meted out in the past for failures to reveal 'information' as opposed to agreements. Imo, 2C was natural [north did pass did they not]. Since W had a decidedly suitable hand to pass and was unwilling to pass partner's penalty double of 2C it is a reasonable conclusion that W was not damaged by the alert or failure to alert, which ever in fact happened. If east's double was take out, then EW are using inferior agreements and should be satisfied with what those inferior agreements bring. I think that the alerts and explanations were timely and accurate [the above exception is debatable]. I think that the information that responder suspects an off color bid is solely from east's penalty pass and the cards he holds. Everyone has access to the auction and the other three players are entitled to information only via the bids a player makes [explanations of agreements] - not his speculations resulting from the cards he holds. That any attempt to speculate to the opponents that partner's call was psychic by agreement or a non existent implied agreement could and should be dealt with if it were deceptive and damaged the opponents. I think it is flat out wrong to require a partnership to speculate to the opponents. To do so is to subject them to multiple jeopardy and at the same time reveal their hand not by the bids they make but by the explaining of speculations. That responder may speculate to the nature of opener's call he does so at his own risk. That his hand aids him in that speculation is the result of chance and the opponents are not entitled to that. I find it reprehensible that tournament officials can create something from nothing [an agreement without discussion which is also illegal] and then rule that it was used in an unethical way. It smacks of the bridge lawyering that so many find insidious. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > I expect you all remember Beate Birr's appeal at Lille after she > psyched a 1NT opening. She wrote it up [since there was no official > record, unlike *every* other appeal from Lille] and it has appeared in > several places, including as an article on RGB. If any of you do not > remember the story then it is on my Bridgepage, specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm snip > 3 Whatever North-South have done, the failure to bid game appears to be > solely East-West's own fault. Do you not consider their actions > subsequent to any infraction rather than consequent? > > 4 Why did East-West not get their table score in view of the fact that > they did not play bridge after the alleged infraction? > Dear David, snip > 3.In either a medium or high-level game, the actions taken by East-West > were subsequent to the possible infraction. To this particular EW the > intimidation caused sub-bridge to be played. While NS are not > responsible for EW's incompetence, the humanics of Active Ethics should > dictate to NS to clarify rather than ignore. If pairs are going to > psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special > ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to > everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious > sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all > the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is > going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and > then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to > say that this particular pair did not know. However, I will agree that > EW did not deserve the 50% we (I) gave them. They should have gotten > 20%, but in practice it doesn't make a material difference, so > rationalize it to give 30% punitive damages to them for pain, suffering > and humiliation. Maybe the naysayers should spend their time figuring a > way to keep players like EW out of these world championship events. At > least they might be doing something constructive for the game rather > than to encourage inactive ethics like they do and sadly, I think, not > even know it or worse not even care. > > 4. Giving them their table score would have been a correct judgment, > but see above. I might have not thought about it at the time or maybe > we wanted to repair their feelings. Either way, Mea Culpa! > Bobby From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 03:31:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:31:33 +1100 Received: from sb.net (root@sb.net [209.241.234.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18592 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:31:26 +1100 Received: from 207.205.156.113 (pool-207-205-156-113.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.113]) by sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA23657 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:34:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3648770A.5B5A@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:25:31 -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: Lille Appeal References: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> <3.0.1.32.19981110091359.006d51bc@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > [snip] > 2. At some point, the repeated and consistent reliance on a nominally > anti-systemic bid to show a psych becomes a de facto partnership agreement, > which must be shared with the opponents. Beyond that point, the explanation > "does not exist" provides inadequate protection of the opponents' > interests, while that or an equivalent phrase ("we have no agreement") is > adequate the first few times this situation arises. > > Mike Dennis These are not equivalent phrases. I open 1S, partner bids 5H. Opponents ask. "We have no agreement," I say. The bid is not by its nature anti-systemic; partner is making something up and I may or may not guess what he's doing. Playing any of a number of relay responses to 2N, 3S forces 3N by opener. If I open 2N, partner bids 3S and I bid 4C, we have an agreement -- I am not to do that. Partner's description as "That does not exist," seems sufficient and appropriate. If he believes that experience dictates, he may offer, "Partner generally fails to remember even our most basic agreements, so it is more likely that he has erred here rather than trying something impossibly clever," or "From partnership experience, it is more probable than not that he psyched 2N." But in general, I don't see any way for partner to guess what the heck I'm doing. The bid does not exist. I have seriously violated system and destroyed the auction. This is different from "We have no agreement," which implies that partner has done something outside of discussion. If my partner did this, I'd alert and say "The bid does not exist in our system. Partner is forced to bid 3N and only 3N." With screens, I'd shrug my shoulders and write "Non-existent; system violation." --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 04:18:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 04:18:00 +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 EAA18725 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 04:17:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdHUM-0007EL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:53:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Orange book MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The EBU's Orange book is now available both in a downloadable form [Adobe Acrobat: you can download that as well if you do not have it] and in an HTML form [thanks to Niels Wendell Pedersen for his work on it] with hyperlinks to Law references. For either form have a look at the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee page at http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec Incidentally, I don't think much of the L&EC icon they use. Has anyone got a suitable one [a wig, perhaps?] of similar size that I could borrow? -- 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 Wed Nov 11 05:04:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:04:22 +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 FAA18879 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:04:15 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA19040; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:07:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019012; Tue Nov 10 12:07:19 1998 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0CAA.D96374A0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0CAA.D96374A0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael Farebrother'" Subject: RE: Lille Appeal Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:33:05 -0500 Encoding: 54 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] (Much intelligent commentary snipped) The best way to deal with inveterate phychists was found before Simon's book - and it didn't require legislation. (CS)Can you expand on this thought, MIchael? What, in your opinion is that "best way"? (snip) (MF) In fact, this whole argument reminds me of arguments used in the 1950's and '60's against "communist infiltration" and "aggression" (if you aren't actively anti-communist, you might be one; (CS)Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the international psyching conspiracy? (Point of order, Mr. Chairman!) (MF) if we don't stop the spread of communism in Vietnam, it will spread to other nations in South-East Asia as one domino falling will topple another near it). (CS)More validity there, unfortunately. The Marshall Plan and the development of NATO, the Korean Conflict and the maintenance of a strong military at considerable social cost, DID ultimately at least partially defang the enslaving monolith. Whether the place to stand and fight was Indo-China in the wake of the French experience might be subject to question...and the conduct of the fighting in a no-win, low-morale manner was less than desirable. Nonetheless, a passive approach to the spread of Communism would have seen it more widespread, with disastrous results to both freedom and human rights in many parts of the world. Likewise it is possible to have overkill in the name of active ethics. But to fail to enforce the laws and strongly encourage ethical behaviour could only lead to irreparable damage to bridge. Dominoes DO topple, and bad apples do damage the good ones in the barrel. (MF) My apologies if I've got my history skewed (I wasn't alive then, (CS)That young and a bridge player...see, there's hope yet. :-) (MF) and I've never been a US citizen) (CS)That certainly seems forgiveable...in fact many on list would consider it a positive recommendation. :-) Thank you for a most interesting post. It is sometimes difficult to remain civilised in discussing matters of this nature...I believe you have given an example of how to accomplish this without diluting your point of view. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 05:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:05:25 +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 FAA18896 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:05:19 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcjto.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.184]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20875 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:09:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110130608.006d0694@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:06:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L79B In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:29 PM 11/10/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> p.s. which was the law that needs no revision ? > > I am happy with L3. > What a pushover you are! This gives the director far too much discretion in choosing the compass direction for North. The failure of the WBFLC to stipulate a precise procedure for determining true North is one of the more glaring omissions in the FLB, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 05:31:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:31:22 +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 FAA18936 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:31:16 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18318; 10 Nov 98 10:34 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:46:38 PST." <3.0.1.32.19981109234638.006d048c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:34:44 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811101034.aa18318@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 06:20 PM 11/9/98 PST, Adam wrote: > >> Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? > > > >If East is an expert and West is a client, I might rule differently. > > > I know it's off the track, but I'm intrigued. Why would the expertise of > West matter at all? I was only half-serious---forgot the half-smiley, sorry. But it had to do with what I wrote previously. If East and West are both experts, then to me it would be inconsistent to rule that a S5 play by East would be irrational, when it couldn't possibly be any more irrational than this idiotic claim by West. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 06:55:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 06:55:16 +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 GAA19125 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 06:55:05 +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 ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:59:06 -0800 Message-ID: <36489BB8.59A8E623@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:02:00 -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: Lille Appeal References: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> <3.0.1.32.19981110091359.006d51bc@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael, which part of "no" don't you understand? Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Let us suppose that in the past 100 or sessions for this partnership, this > scenario has occurred 5 or 6 times: one partner has opened 1nt and after > 1nt-x-xx-P has bid 2 of a suit "anti-systemically". We will further suppose > that in each such instance, the 1nt opener has psyched his opening, in the > sense of owning far less than the agreed range of HCP. Then whatever > nominal agreements this pair may claim, this "anti-systemic" bid has, in > fact, developed into an agreement: it shows a psych. And that information > should be shared with the opponents. I have seen noone disagree in the hypothetical case you present, so why do you continue to repeat this? This thread was *not* however abt a hypothetical case but a real one, with it's actual facts and evidence. > As I have frequently emphasized, I am not in a position to know the facts > upon which the AC ruled. But you are! From the AC's own write-up you know what "evidence" was available, and what conclusion the AC drew based upon it. We all have access to that info. So pls reread (or accept as a stipulation) and you'll find that the evidence here was that such an auction had *NEVER* occured for this partnership, and it would have been a complete lie to tell opponents "based on previous experience........."! Now - if the AC would state that they don't beleive the evidence that's another matter, but they didn't do so. They made their ruling *in spite of* the evidence, and by invocing non-existent laws, and RW basically admitted this in his comments at the time as well as later. Were this not so, DS wouldn't have been making such a big deal of this case, interviewing RW months later, etc,etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 07:29:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:29:32 +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 HAA19227 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:29:25 +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 ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:33:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3648A3C9.7621B46F@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:36:25 -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: Lille Appeal References: <36486637.8B8C419E@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > I do not think that NS had an agreement about the second > redouble in this sequence [being out of bounds as the auction was] but > maybe it is reasonable for south to believe that partner would infer > that it was. I do not think that it is best to alert a call that does > not have an agreement attached to it. I agree, and it is very risky to make such statements when one has not discussed it. However, I think NS both stretched to fulfill full disclosure requirements by explaining what pard probably, resp S actually, held. This is another reason why I'm appaled with the AC ruling since it seems to send the message that "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't". Clearly you are exposing yourself to score-adjustments and PPs etc by volunteering info you deduce only from the auction, and it seems very unfair by the "active ethics mob" not to aknowledge this. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 08:33:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:33:09 +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 IAA19317 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:32:59 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdLT6-0003BE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:36:57 +0000 Message-ID: <7hYXqxDUGLS2EwF2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:35:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: L3 (was L79B) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981110130608.006d0694@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19981110130608.006d0694@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 01:29 PM 11/10/98 +0000, David S wrote: >>Grattan wrote: >> >>> p.s. which was the law that needs no revision ? >> >> I am happy with L3. >> >What a pushover you are! This gives the director far too much discretion in >choosing the compass direction for North. The failure of the WBFLC to >stipulate a precise procedure for determining true North is one of the more >glaring omissions in the FLB, IMO. > The Young Chelsea doesn't have a North. One is obliged to check at each table where it is. Given also my propensity for odd movements like an 11 table Worger movement with a rover (pairs up one, rover up two, boards down 1, rover boards down 2), and partial penultimate round arrow switching all compounded by the French Club's table numbering scheme which is 1 7 2 8 3 9 4 10 etc., we can approximate total chaos. (who needs a random shuffle?) Cheers John >Mike Dennis -- 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 Nov 11 09:14:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:14:43 +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 JAA19404 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:14:36 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lc4jj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.18.115]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30365 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:18:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981110171524.006e05cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:15:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <36489BB8.59A8E623@home.com> References: <00a701be0c40$a45310a0$c42f63c3@david-burn> <3.0.1.32.19981110091359.006d51bc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 PM 11/10/98 -0800, Jan wrote: >Michael, which part of "no" don't you understand? > >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> Let us suppose that in the past 100 or sessions for this partnership, this >> scenario has occurred 5 or 6 times: one partner has opened 1nt and after >> 1nt-x-xx-P has bid 2 of a suit "anti-systemically". We will further suppose >> that in each such instance, the 1nt opener has psyched his opening, in the >> sense of owning far less than the agreed range of HCP. Then whatever >> nominal agreements this pair may claim, this "anti-systemic" bid has, in >> fact, developed into an agreement: it shows a psych. And that information >> should be shared with the opponents. > >I have seen noone disagree in the hypothetical case you present, so why >do you continue to repeat this? >This thread was *not* however abt a hypothetical case but a real one, >with it's actual facts and evidence. > >> As I have frequently emphasized, I am not in a position to know the facts >> upon which the AC ruled. > >But you are! From the AC's own write-up you know what "evidence" was >available, and what conclusion the AC drew based upon it. >We all have access to that info. >So pls reread (or accept as a stipulation) and you'll find that the >evidence here was that such an auction had *NEVER* occured for this >partnership, and it would have been a complete lie to tell opponents >"based on previous experience........."! >Now - if the AC would state that they don't beleive the evidence that's >another matter, but they didn't do so. They made their ruling *in spite >of* the evidence, and by invocing non-existent laws, and RW basically >admitted this in his comments at the time as well as later. >Were this not so, DS wouldn't have been making such a big deal of this >case, interviewing RW months later, etc,etc. > (Note: this is from private correspondence with Roger Pewick) I was basing my comments principally on this excerpt from Wolff's commentary: "In this case, South is well within her rights to psyche a l2-l4 point NT--anything could happen--what did happen was that when South later bid 2 clubs her partner described it as "does not exist" knowing full well (in my opinion) that it probably confirmed a psychic, a bid he had used many times before from his side of the table." I read this last bit as asserting that North had frequently psyched 1nt and used an "impossible" 2-of-a-suit bid to escape. Whether Wolff's opinion was a fair or accurate judgement of the partnership history is obviously up for grabs. Based on some of his other comments and decisions, I certainly have my doubts. But as I have repeatedly stressed, I am not in a position to outguess the AC about the relevant facts. If the committee erred in its judgement of this question, then their ruling was wrong. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 10:15:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:15:53 +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 KAA19498 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:15:45 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h83.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA18883; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:19:45 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <364972FF.3B35@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:20:31 -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: L79B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sorry for delaying my answer - I've just now return from my business trip. It is a pity - but I should quote several David's (DWS) posts because there happened strange things... Or I do not understand English at all David wrote: "Just read the Law Vitold: the wording is discretionary. I did not breach it by applying discretion." Well - thanks for good advice and let's read Definition of the Round: and the Laws 8B, 8C and 79B: Definition: Round - A part of a session played without progression of players. 8B. End of Round In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. 8C. End of Last Round and End of Session The last round of a session, and the session itself, ends for each table when play of all boards scheduled at that table has been completed, and when all scores have been entered on the proper scoring forms without objection. 79B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called. No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8 (but Law 69 or Law 71 may supersede this provision when there has been an acquiescence or a concession). David wrote: "When running Swiss Pairs I have had experience from the same tournament of two cases: one of them was at Table 1 [ie the leading two pairs were playing each other] with one round to go. Two highly ethical pairs had played each other, and dummy had scored a board on the Table Score card as 5D* making: his partner [declarer] and both defenders had put 5D*-1 on their personal score cards. The defence had signed the Table Score card at the end of the match. As a result of that match they were now clear favourites to win the match and their opponents mathematically could no longer do so. When they received their slips for checking the during the next match the "error" was discovered. Should I have allowed a change in the score? I did not. I consider that the Law is designed for exactly this position. If the lawmakers wish to have a Law for this event then it is not up to me as a TD not to follow their dictates. [I was pleased that this pair won anyway, and since they were popular I got nagged by about twenty people at the end of the event!] In the other occasion it concerned an overtrick at table 54 out of 55, ie players who could not possibly win the event. There was no possibility of such a decision favouring one side only: the other side would lose by it as much as they gained. Thus I allowed the change." As David wrote: in first example (for 1-st table) he refused to change the score on basis of table's number . But while having grounded his decision David even did not mentioned that the request of change the score happened during NEXT round - and the L79B forbids such a change. In his second case David changed the score at 54-th table and did not point when he had been called - that's why I wrote: > If allowed period was over - then it was breach of the Laws. And then I added (in assumption that both cases were in similar condition): > Such different treating of players with breaching the Laws > is possible (for my opinion) at club level - and absolutely > inadmissible at championships or international contests: > equal rights and equal conditions of every participant are > obligated for any sport. And never mind table number at all. > Otherwise - who will decide where is this boundary... I am > rather surprised that there were no mention about rank > of contest where DWS made his ruling. With great surprise I read David's reaction: " Because it is irrelevant. L79B makes no mention of the level of contest. I am following the Law as written. I am applying equal rights and equal conditions: you are not." 1. My first thought was - David read neither my post nor remember his own. Really - L79B makes mention of the period of time when the score may be changed. DWS described his cases as comparable (with table's number as sufficient parameter) - so one could understand that every other parameters (including NEXT round period) were the same - and that's why my first objection was. That's why I think David's ruling (to change the score at second case) was breach of the L79B. The table's number was irrelevant, round's period was sufficient. 2. David is right: L79B makes no mention about the level of contest - and it has power at contest of every type. And for every participants at these contests. But it was David who made these rulings - not me:) And it was David who treated participants depending on their current Swiss position - not me:). The only my fault was that I admitted such doing (David's different rulings for different players) at club level only - and strongly objected against similar rulings at national and international contests. And now David is trying to prove what?:) That I was mistaken? Well, David - you are right: it was my mistake when I tried to explain to myself that your rulings are possible for club contest. Because they may make play more comfortable for rather weak players. Nevertheless - have you ever hear, David, that during the contest different players set themselves different aims: experts - to win, good players - to reach deserved result. Even weak players/teams are struggling (between themselves) for better place - and that fighting is provide with the same emotion as for win. There happened even bet (with sufficient stakes) for final place at championship - between national teams... And similar (as David's) ruling will disturb rights all of these participants - for equal condition... And now David convinced me that such ruling are inadmissible even at club level. That's why I do not understand why David does not agree with my comments: Then David wrote: " I believe that until the law makers see fit to change this Law we must apply it when it is suitable to do so. Now that the wording has changed to make it discretionary I believe that the only time no increase in score is to be given is when there is clear benefit to the side that would get the increase, while there is no real disadvantage to their opponents. In other situations I allow an increase in score." Nevertheless - David's doing contradicted with his words. He did not proved that at 1-st table there was "no real disadvantage"... On the contrary - it was his volitional decision. Not too good for TD of such rank.. The only pardon - change was forbidden (because of round was over). Otherwise he might unreasonably hurt the players... And Herman De Wael added: "But the Lawmakers have precisely put this intention in the Laws. Formerly, no correction was allowed; and this had good reasons - the table 1 case is one of them. But then the table 54 guy is mad. Why doesn't he get his better score. So the Law was changed. Now the Table 54 guy can get his change, and I feel David was correct in letting him have it. But the Law was not changed to the extent that the director MUST allow the change. The only reason why this change was not made is that the Lawmakers still don't trust potential winners from getting LOLs giving them some extra tricks. If the change is not mandatory in the Laws, then surely David was correct in not allowing the change for table 1. So it is not David's ruling which is "unfair" and different between tables; it is the Laws and I don't think the Lawmakers have done a bad job." Well - but the TDs' authority not to increase the score may be used only with "protecting the line aims", when there are serious reason to suspect unfair players' doing. And it is (for my opinion) - the only reason, never mind table's number: it may happens so at 1-st table as at 54-th. For me Lawmakers' intentions are absolutely clear: the Law was changed for making bridge more sportish. And every players should be treated in equal manner: problem is their DOING, not their STANDING. That's why for my opinion David's ruling were wrong (in case when time conditions allow the change): they were made without analysis, based on table's number only. Several words more. TDs are to handle (with this new authority) with great care and tact. Because unreasonable refusal (within allowed period) at 1-st table (with the only reason - 1-st table) may hurt players and make impossible the very contest. By the way, LOLs rare play at 1-st table... Then - Herman's position is not the same as David's:) But Herman used very harsh wording: "The only reason why this change was not made is that the Lawmakers still don't trust potential winners from getting LOLs giving them some extra tricks." That makes Herman's position even more dangerous than David's... I guess (and hope) that he is mistaken. Nobody should suspect strong players as group - only because they are potential winners. Especially - neither Tds, nor Lawmakers. Best wishes Vitold P.S. Happy Birthday to Quango from Chia From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 10:28:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:28:56 +1100 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19537 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:28:48 +1100 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:28:48 +1100 Received: (qmail 5670 invoked from network); 10 Nov 1998 22:58:41 -0000 Received: from pm02-111.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.111) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 10 Nov 1998 22:58:41 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19981110183039.12bfbf28@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 PM 11/10/98 -0000, you wrote: >[snip] > >Thomas wrote: > >> >>Yes, that's how I see it, too. >>So then, why do you demand that, in the case where N's partner >>has psyched, N should tell opponents that partner has psyched? >> >>Did I misunderstand? > >I made no such demand. North's duty (and South's) is to tell the >opponents: "My partner has violated our systemic agreement, which is >that she must pass my redouble. IMO informing your screenmates that bid does not exist is IMO raising HUGE red flags that something have happend. And does not exist is IMO a perfect short enough describtion of the system agreements the pair is having. >In our partnership experience, this >violation has not occurred before, so I do not know with what type of >hand my partner has chosen to commit it." He should most certainly not >tell the opponents anything such as "my partner has probably >psyched" - on what basis, other than general bridge knowledge, does he >assess this probability? Telling opps pd have probably psyched and so on will just open another can of worms of ME/MI when pd had for his first bid and still bid 2CL. Can just imaging the screaming for TD/AC on a such blatant MI. > >>No, the bid systematically does not exist. The don't have "no >agreement" >>on that 2C bid, their agreement is that it is anti-systemic to bid 2C >>because opener always has to pass 1NT XX. > >There may be some confusion here - I agree that the bid "does not >exist" in the sense that it would not, for example, be defined in the >NS system file, nor described on the convention card. But to use the >phrase "does not exist" in talking about a bid that has just come into >existence is not helpful. You may think, and I may think, that we >would know what an opponent meant if she used the phrase "that bid >does not exist" - but, particularly in tournaments between players of >different nationalities, one should be very careful about assuming >that the opponents will understand a colloquial English phrase. > >Moreover, the opening bidder clearly does not "always have to pass". >If she has psyched, she does not have to pass - and, from what she >herself wrote in an earlier message, she might choose not to pass if >her 1NT opening was based on a sub-minimum point count with long >clubs, a hand that shge was prepared to treat as a 1NT opening until >it got redoubled. The difficulty is, as always, that if one judges by >the actions of the players and the statements of the players regarding >those actions, and by those alone (as one should in my opinion judge), >then the evidence is that NS's agreement is in fact: "South must pass >only if she has a balanced 11-13; if she has a 2 count, or even a 10 >count with long clubs, she may bid." Like they say you can prove anything with statistics, if we follow the thread out and apply the idea described above we get too that position where the psycher is NOT allowed trying to put the wheels back on when they have fallen off and that is IMO a clear violation of the laws. It takes us too the idea i think some people have that when you psyche 40% is your top or your actual score if it is less. > Now, South has said that this is >not their agreement, since it would be their agreement only if there >were a prior history of such incidents, and I believe her. But what I >believe makes no difference - what NS did was exactly what they would >have done if they did in fact have the agreement that South would pull >a redouble with a psyche, and to rule on that basis seems perfectly >sensible. what about if souths hand had been a 10 Hcp hand with a broken 6cd club suit and really bad cards for NT like a hand like this Ax Ax Jxx QTxxxx The hand is worth a lot more in a club contract knowing opps penalty Xed the 1NT the hand can easily only produce 2 tricks in a NT contract and several more in a club contract. > >>Apart from that, it is *normal* with screens that short explanations >>are written down first and more detailed information will be >>provided upon request only. Otherwise with screens a board would take >15 minutes, >>not 8 or 9. (N/S would have to write down your lengthy explanation >>on both sides of the table) > >Of course. But in situations where a player is departing from her >disclosed methods, she has a duty to take especial care to make it >plain to her opponents that this is what she is doing. It simply is >not good enough in such a case to write a short and not particuarly >helpful comment to one's screen-mate. Whereas in normal circumstances, >a short explanation almost always suffices, in these circumstances it >does not, and both North and South should have taken the extra time >that their opponents needed. What about the NO AGREEMENT. an always winning information. But it will still not be enough here since with the prejustice is they are feilding psyches when moving away from partnership agreements Hand above i bet you could find people willing too pull. >>The explanation that S is mandated to pass >>1NT XX had already been provided with the XX. >> >>>Since I have bid, I am denying such a hand. >> >>I disagree, here. That's bridge judgment, not systemic agreement. > >No. It's simply providing the opponents with enough information for >them to be able to use their own bridge judgment. It is telling the >opponents enough about the system to enable them to understand clearly >what is happening. It's doing one's duty as a bridge player. Why don't we just play 52 cards face up game would be so much easier > >>Apart from that, it is not in accordance with N/S's agreement, >>which indeed is *not* that opener is denying a balanced 11-13 when >>s/he runs to 2C, but which is that opener has to pass 1NT XX. >*Always*. >> > >Nonsense. If that were the case, she would have to pass it with a flat >2 count. > The agreement where XX= business Where in the Law do you support the position that when you have psyched you are not allowed to try to put back the wheels again ?????? I havn't found a such section yet. >> >>The difference between E and W is that, whereas W decided to listen >>to the explanation to it's full extent, E decided that s/he >>had been bothered with enough information after >>"2C systematically does not exist". > >The difference between East and West is probably that West was a >sufficiently strong or experienced player to make sense of the >inadequate information that South had handed him. East could not >handle North's equally inadequate information as well as West could, >and became confused by the whole proceedings. That this was partly >through her own lack of experience or bridge knowledge, I do not >doubt, and it is of course clear that players should not be given >redress simply because they are incompetent. But when their >incompetence is exacerbated by being given inadequate explanations of >a confusing auction, I believe (as did the Appeals Committee) that >they are entitled to some protection. > I think we should clearly EXPECT players at WORLDCHAMPIONSHIPS too be strong players. Players making it to the WC you expect too be adv+/ experts top pairs from there country. You do not expect too find weak intermediate players that have barely heard of the point scale 4 for A, 3 for K, 2for Q and 1 for J IMO it is 100% clear that at least one in the EW pair didn't know how to add points I have a strong feeling that this EW pair have been making trashy penalty X of weak NT in the history. playing the X too be more like a noise then for penalty and as that one in the pair didn't want to bid on with the 11 hcp. IMO that looks a lot closer to feilded psyche when being able too pass with 11 hcp facing a pd that is basically showing half the deck himself. This would be a very interesting appeal if it turned out that passing 2NT with 11 hcp vs a strong bidding pd turned out too be correct. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 10:29:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:29:15 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f69.hotmail.com [207.82.251.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19554 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:29:07 +1100 Received: (qmail 533 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1998 23:32:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19981110233243.531.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.84 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:32:42 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.84] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Lille Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:32:42 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Craig Senior >From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] >(Much intelligent commentary snipped) Thank you. I've been worrried recently that I've come across as offensive and agressive. I try to write so that I get read, not yelled at; any suggestions as to how to get closer to that ideal are welcome (off-list, preferably). > The >best way to deal with inveterate phychists was found before Simon's book >- and it didn't require legislation. > >(CS)Can you expand on this thought, MIchael? What, in your opinion is that >"best way"? > Well, I agree with Simon: "Therefore I urge you to forget that there is such a thing as a phychic in the opening round of bidding. Treat the suspected bid as genuine. Make the normal bid over it. If you have an informatory double make it. If you have the values to overbid with one No Trump, bid one No Trump. And if policy dictates a pass, then pass. "Of course, sometimes the remaining cards will be distributed in such a manner that the psychic will remain undiscovered until too late and you will get a bad result. That is inevitable. But you will find that this policy will expose a large percentage of the psychics without at any time running any appreciable rish yourself. When it doesn't, the opponents will get into trouble quite a lot of the time. "And, final argument, you will gain heavily each time opponents are not psychic. For then they will be landed with the misfit hand instead of you." or, earlier, "`So you're psyched. So what!'" The most important thing IMO is to keep cool, just the same as you have to when your opponents bid 1D-2D; 3D-4D; 5D-6D; 7D-p; and take 13 of their 16 top tricks. Otherwise you damage your results for the rest of the round, and maybe even for the next rounds against those people. I strongly believe that the best place to be is a "known psycher". I get a lot of good results because my partner trusts my bidding, and my opponents do not. Occasionally, I have to psych and take my likely bad result, just to keep it in my opponents' mind. Once or twice a year works about right around here. Psyching is a losing proposition. But the response of most players around here to the tactic is even more a losing proposition - even when they score -170 for 2H+2 and a clear top. >(MF) My >apologies if I've got my history skewed (I wasn't alive then, > >(CS)That young and a bridge player...see, there's hope yet. :-) > I'm just out of university again (anyone need a programmer with 4-5 years C/C++ experience?) - that might just explain my reaction to "silly bugger bidding", too. Again thanks for the compliment, and you're welcome :-). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 10:46:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:46:11 +1100 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 KAA19605 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:46:02 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811102346.KAA19605@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:46:53 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA118401610; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:46:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:46:50 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981110171524.006e05cc@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 10, 1998 05:15:24 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 Michael S. Dennis: >I was basing my comments principally on this excerpt from Wolff's commentary: > >"In this case, South is well within her rights to psyche a l2-l4 point >NT--anything could happen--what did happen was that when South later bid 2 >clubs her partner described it as "does not exist" knowing full well (in my >opinion) that it probably confirmed a psychic, a bid he had used many times >before from his side of the table." I repeat that N/S don't play 12-14 NT. Any further questions about whether Mr. Wolff's opinion should be taken as a fact when even his facts are wrong? >I read this last bit as asserting that North had frequently psyched 1nt and >used an "impossible" 2-of-a-suit bid to escape. I think this is a blatant, deliberate lie by Mr. Wolff. He has no evidence at all to back up his opinion that N frequently psyched 1NT and used 2C as a runout. I as their long term team mate do not remember a single hand at all where N psyched 1NT and subsequently used 2-of-a-suit as a runout. In the system N/S play, N would just open a terrorist 4-4 two-suiter if he felt the vulnerability mandated an opening bid with a two point flat count. Even if N had such 1NT psyching experience from previous partnerships with other players, that's his personal bridge knowledge, and he should not volunteer his bridge knowledge when explaining partner's bidding. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 13:52:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:52:25 +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 NAA19964 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:52:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdQSC-0004Lm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:56:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:55:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <364972FF.3B35@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <364972FF.3B35@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold wrote: >79B. Disagreement on Tricks Won >If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called. No >increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before >the round ends as specified in Law 8 (but Law 69 or Law 71 may >supersede this provision when there has been an acquiescence or a >concession). No increase in score need be granted ... This means that it can be, but need not, after the end of the round. I then gave an example where I gave an increase in score at one table and not at another: this Law makes that legal. >> If allowed period was over - then it was breach of the Laws. No. Read the Law. >> Such different treating of players with breaching the Laws >> is possible (for my opinion) at club level - and absolutely >> inadmissible at championships or international contests: >> equal rights and equal conditions of every participant are >> obligated for any sport. And never mind table number at all. >> Otherwise - who will decide where is this boundary... I am >> rather surprised that there were no mention about rank >> of contest where DWS made his ruling. > >With great surprise I read David's reaction: > >" Because it is irrelevant. L79B makes no mention of the level of >contest. I am following the Law as written. I am applying equal rights >and equal conditions: you are not." > >1. My first thought was - David read neither my post nor remember >his own. Really - L79B makes mention of the period of time when the >score may be changed. DWS described his cases as comparable (with >table's number as sufficient parameter) - so one could understand that every >other parameters (including NEXT round period) were the same - and that's >why my first objection was. That's why I think David's ruling (to change the >score at second case) was breach of the L79B. The table's number was >irrelevant, round's period was sufficient. No. You have not read the Law. The TD may allow a change but need not after the round has ended. >2. David is right: L79B makes no mention about the level of contest - >and it has power at contest of every type. And for every participants at >these contests. But it was David who made these rulings - not me:) And >it was David who treated participants depending on their current Swiss >position - not me:). The only my fault was that I admitted such doing >(David's different rulings for different players) at club level only - and >strongly objected against similar rulings at national and international >contests. And now David is trying to prove what?:) That I was mistaken? >Well, David - you are right: it was my mistake when I tried to explain >to myself that your rulings are possible for club contest. Because they >may make play more comfortable for rather weak players. This is irrelevant. >Nevertheless - have you ever hear, David, that during the contest different >players set themselves different aims: experts - to win, good players - to >reach deserved result. Even weak players/teams are struggling (between >themselves) for better place - and that fighting is provide with the same >emotion as for win. There happened even bet (with sufficient stakes) for >final place at championship - between national teams... And similar >(as David's) ruling will disturb rights all of these participants - for equal >condition... >And now David convinced me that such ruling are inadmissible even at >club level. A pity that you are not prepared to follow the Law as written. it is a pity that you have decided in total defiance of the Law [despite quoting it!] to upset players needlessly. >Nevertheless - David's doing contradicted with his words. He did not >proved that at 1-st table there was "no real disadvantage"... On the >contrary - it was his volitional decision. Not too good for TD of such >rank.. The only pardon - change was forbidden (because of round was >over). Otherwise he might unreasonably hurt the players... I followed the Law. I followed the interpretation of the Law. What do you want me to do: ignore the Law? -- 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 Wed Nov 11 20:16:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:16:08 +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 UAA20540 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:16:01 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-246.uunet.be [194.7.13.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA10574 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:20:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3648697A.C05EAC21@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:27:38 +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: L79B References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > > p.s. which was the law that needs no revision ? > > I am happy with L3. > Are you certain ? Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 11 23:14:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:14:13 +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 XAA20905 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:14:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdZDu-0005wc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:18:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:14:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <3648697A.C05EAC21@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3648697A.C05EAC21@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> I am happy with L3. >Are you certain ? > >Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? It does. "... other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North." Now see what you have done, Grattan: Herman and I are going to get flamed by David Burn and you for being bridge lawyers again. -- 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 Nov 12 01:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 01:21:22 +1100 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 BAA23400 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 01:21:13 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id SZMLa04133; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:24:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1d89718a.36499e00@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:24:00 EST To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: L79B 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 Herman DE WAEL states: << Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? >> Yes, but only in Euclidean geometries. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 03:22:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 03:22:06 +1100 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 DAA23914 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 03:21:55 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA14979 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:25:58 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981111172150.009d6100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:21:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L79B In-Reply-To: <1d89718a.36499e00@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:24 11-11-98 EST, you wrote: >Herman DE WAEL states: > ><< Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? >> > >Yes, but only in Euclidean geometries. > >Karen > You mean to say that playing bridge usually is more distorting than normal human beings can imagine :), see the Wolff discussion. (btw i hope there will come a moderator who concludes and ends this - becoming - useless discussion), but anyway these remarks are very good for our citation index. A thing not only scientists have to care about i see. cheers Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 03:56:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 03:56:19 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f8.hotmail.com [207.82.250.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA24047 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 03:56:11 +1100 Received: (qmail 10307 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 1998 16:59:48 -0000 Message-ID: <19981111165948.10306.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:59:47 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L79B MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:59:47 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Herman DE WAEL states: > ><< Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? >> > >Yes, but only in Euclidean geometries. > >Karen > There is also, IYAM, a glaring omission in that not only should East be to North's left, he should also be in front of him. Here's looking at Euclid... Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 05:20:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:20:38 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f57.hotmail.com [207.82.251.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA24310 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:20:32 +1100 Received: (qmail 21301 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 1998 18:24:09 -0000 Message-ID: <19981111182409.21300.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.241 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:24:08 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.241] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L79B MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:24:08 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Norman Scorbie" >>Herman DE WAEL states: >> >><< Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? >> >> >>Yes, but only in Euclidean geometries. >> >>Karen >> >There is also, IYAM, a glaring omission in that not only should East >be to North's left, he should also be in front of him. > >Here's looking at Euclid... > Ewwww. So, at my local Cartesian bridge club last night, the following situation occurred. Y+ has won the contract in 4S. X- leads, simultaneously to X+, and then Y+ starts putting dummy down. At this point they all stop and the point TD_1 is called, who vectors to (0+delta,0+delta) wrt the offended table... Michael. So I made it up. What happens anyway? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 05:41:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:41:06 +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 FAA24404 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:40:56 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02631; 11 Nov 98 10:44 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L79B In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:59:47 PST." <19981111165948.10306.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:44:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811111044.aa02631@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman wrote: > There is also, IYAM, a glaring omission in that not only should East be > to North's left, he should also be in front of him. > > Here's looking at Euclid... Of all the mailing lists on all the Internet hosts in all the world, I had to walk into this one . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 06:41:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:41:56 +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 GAA24560 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:41:48 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h44.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id WAA29992; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:45:52 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:46:40 -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: L79B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_3.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_3.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Well - it became necessary to make an analysis of the Law. And I am sorry for my English: maybe because of it I do not understand David and Herman:) "79B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called. No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8 (but Law 69 or Law 71 may supersede this provision when there has been an acquiescence or a concession)." 1. A lot of times during our discussion David (DWS) repeated the quote " No increase in score need be granted ..." Nice - but it is only second sentence of the L79B. Let us start from the beginning: "If a subsequent disagreement arises..." That means that the L79B deals with situation: after the board was over there were agreement about number of tricks, won by each party, and then - there became disagreement. The TD should be called. 2. Second sentence ("No increase in score need be granted...") tells us that there are several possibilities: - TD is called before the round ends - then he (usually) has enough information for establishing facts (hearing parties' positions, checking their card play, etc.) and for making his ruling (this period may be increased in accordance with L69 and L71 - TD is called (by one or both party, rather - not called, but they go to him) after the round ends - then he cannot compare parties' opinions, cannot check card play, etc.; and there are two possibilities: - any his decision about decreasing somebody's score (in accordance with statement of this player) is final - any his decision about increasing somebody's score is provisional, made on his (TD's) discretion and may be appealed (as other TD's volitional ruling) At both David's cases both parties had reached new agreement; it was my position and that's why I though: these cases had not been under the L79B at all. David wrote: " This means that it can be, but need not, after the end of the round. I then gave an example where I gave an increase in score at one table and not at another: this Law makes that legal." For me it is clear that David's ruling (and L79B position at all) is not right because he was blinded by external easiness of understanding (and applying) the second sentence - without paying any attention to the first one. Yes, one may say that my interpretation of L79B is wrong and it is based on rather not clear wording. But I'd like to answer in advance: the wording is clear and quite understandable literally. As every law should be literally understandable. 3. Nevertheless - even in assumption that David's interpretation is right - his rulings were also wrong. Because his decisions were based on artificial parameters (such as number of table) without any investigation, establishing facts etc. Simple: first table - no change, 54-th table - approve change. Sorry, but not too fair with respect to players... All the participants of contest should be treated equally:) David wrote: " No. You have not read the Law. The TD may allow a change but need not after the round has ended." Pity, but L79B allows TD to change the score (on his discretion) in case of disagreement only. And TD is expected to use his new authority with care because his decision may easily hurt players (I wrote about it in previous post). Let us remember that TDs are for players service. David wrote: " A pity that you are not prepared to follow the Law as written. it is a pity that you have decided in total defiance of the Law [despite quoting it!] to upset players needlessly." "I followed the Law. I followed the interpretation of the Law. What do you want me to do: ignore the Law?" Let us follow the Law, David. In his literal meaning - even if it seems not to be right law. Up to Lawmakers will change it. And I'd like to underline once more: English is not my native language, I may be mistaken in understanding the very wording of this Law. Then I ask more experience (and with natural knowledge of English) to correct me. Thank you in advance. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 09:03:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:03:09 +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 JAA24934 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:03:02 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA10361; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:06:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010321; Wed Nov 11 16:05:39 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0D95.4E6CE480@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:04:13 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0D95.4E6CE480@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: L79B Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:01:28 -0500 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, this is a bridge joint. The gin folks are down the block. ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 1:44 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L79B Norman wrote: > There is also, IYAM, a glaring omission in that not only should East be > to North's left, he should also be in front of him. > > Here's looking at Euclid... Of all the mailing lists on all the Internet hosts in all the world, I had to walk into this one . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 12:36:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:36:40 +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 MAA25263 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:36:33 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdlkU-0001Bk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 01:40:38 +0000 Message-ID: <9N02SbAuBjS2Ewm7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:48:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold wrote: >Well - it became necessary to make an analysis of the Law. And >I am sorry for my English: maybe because of it I do not >understand David and Herman:) Having read your two posts I have decided that what you have done is not read the earlier posts on the subject. So I shall explain the background again. In a big NAmerican tournament a winner was declared. Shortly afterwards a top NAmerican player appeared with two simpering females in tow, who said that when they had played against him they had stupidly made a mistake over the number of tricks, and *of course* the expert player was right. This gave the expert player the win, and Edgar Kaplan said "This will not happen again". Thus L79B was written, and in 1987 it said "No increase in score may be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends ...". This stopped this happening again because now if a player brought a disagreement in tricks won to the TDs after the end of the round they could reduce the score of one side but were not allowed to increase the score of the other side: note the word "may". As an aside, if anyone has not realised the point to all this, there is a worry that inexperienced players will be either flattered or intimidated if a top player comes to them and suggests a score was wrong so that they will agree with what he says whether it is true or not. Fine. Edgar had plugged a hole, and a particular type of abuse could no longer occur. But .... It was all very well this Law, and people could no longer win by this means, but what happened in other cases, where there was no possibility of a win by this sort of change? In fact, let's go further, the worry is primarily when two pairs have played, and a change in score can now benefit one materially, but cannot really disadvantage the other. So what happens if this is not the case? The lawmakers, probably Edgar, realised that the 1987 L79B was causing a lot of bad situations where there was no need. Since it was only to control a specific abuse there was no need for the Law to apply in other situations where such an abuse was not possible. Thus the word "may" was deliberately changed to "need" in the 1997 Laws so that the TDs could control the situation that leads to abuse and do not need to apply the restriction in the Law otherwise. I then had two examples in the same event, one of which was the Edgar position, one of which was not. I thus ruled on the basis that Edgar would have wished, namely that when one pair could win from a change in the number of tricks [and their opponents could not] I allowed no increase in score: in the other case where neither pair could win and both pairs had the same level of interest in the competition then I allowed the increase in score. In my view my rulings were [a] legal and [b] in line with Edgar's views. -- 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 Nov 12 21:51:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:51:42 +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 VAA26259 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:51:33 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:53:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-151.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.151] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:53:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364B3DCD.3FE0@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:58:05 -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: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Discussion of L79B shows a difference of interpretation here. I like what Vitold wrote. L79B comes just after L79A. It applies when an agreement existed and when the players want to change this agreement. For example everybody is agree on 4H= and after the round they realise than the declarer made in fact 11 tricks. In other case we can apply L79C. Let see an exemple. Dummy who did follow the play wrote on the score sheet 4H-1 while all the others wrote on their personal sheet 4H=. In hurry they changed for the next round without looking the official sheet. In this case (and if TD is convince of the real agreement at the table) we should apply L79C (error in computing the agreed-upon score) and a penalty for not agreed the number of tricks won (L79A). L79B do not apply if the TD is sure it is not an agreement change. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 12 22:08:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:08:13 +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 WAA26379 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:08:04 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-252.uunet.be [194.7.13.252]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00724 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:10:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364AB010.2F895DA8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:53:20 +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: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@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: > > > At both David's cases both parties had reached new agreement; it was > my position and that's why I though: these cases had not been under > the L79B at all. > I must say that Vitold has struck a new chord here ! Indeed the wording "subsequent disagreement" are not equal to the situation which may be called "subsequent new agreement". Now since the wording "subsequent new agreement" is not dealt with in the Lawbook, then L79B must apply to this case. You must realise, Vitold, that if L79B does not apply to the cases David mentions, then what Law does ? Not 79A, so which one ? I would like to be able to say to Vitold that this is what is intended, but i'd rather leave that to Grattan, and yet another entry for his notebook. Any pages left, Grattan ? In reply to some other points Vitold makes, I would like to ask Vitold if he clearly understands that the difference between Table 1 and 54 is in a Swiss pairs tournament, where Table 1 is playing for the big money, and Table 54 is playing for the wooden spoon ? So it is not Table numbers that David is referring to, but placings in the table. It is conceivable for a pair winning the tournament to ask their opponents, who come fourth or fifth depending, to give them an extra trick. It is not conceivable that this happens around the last place. Since the situations are clearly different, and the Law authorises the TD to exercise discretion in awarding the extra trick, I feel that David's actions are defendable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 00:37:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:37:15 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f214.hotmail.com [207.82.251.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28958 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:37:08 +1100 Received: (qmail 12644 invoked by uid 0); 12 Nov 1998 13:40:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19981112134046.12643.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:40:46 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L79B MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 05:40:46 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >So, at my local Cartesian bridge club last night, the following >situation occurred. Y+ has won the contract in 4S. X- leads, >simultaneously to X+, and then Y+ starts putting dummy down. At this >point they all stop and the point TD_1 is called, who vectors to >(0+delta,0+delta) wrt the offended table... > >Michael. > >So I made it up. What happens anyway? I find that Ave- all four sides covers this one quite nicely... Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 03:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:02:18 +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 DAA29392 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:02:06 +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 SAA28738 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:06:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <001301be0e55$8cce6c60$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:00:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" 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 Herman De Wael wrote: snip ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:10:50 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zdzOZ-00032R-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:14:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:28:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> <364B3DCD.3FE0@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <364B3DCD.3FE0@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: >Discussion of L79B shows a difference of interpretation here. >I like what Vitold wrote. >L79B comes just after L79A. >It applies when an agreement existed and when the players want >to change this agreement. >For example everybody is agree on 4H= and after the round they realise >than the declarer made in fact 11 tricks. > >In other case we can apply L79C. >Let see an exemple. >Dummy who did follow the play wrote on the score sheet 4H-1 while >all the others wrote on their personal sheet 4H=. >In hurry they changed for the next round without looking the official >sheet. >In this case (and if TD is convince of the real agreement at the table) >we should apply L79C (error in computing the agreed-upon score) >and a penalty for not agreed the number of tricks won (L79A). >L79B do not apply if the TD is sure it is not an agreement change. I am not sure that I believe any of this. "If a subsequent disagreement arises ..." tells you what to do when you have a later situation where the players are not of one accord. In my view what was written on the score sheet is part of that: either you agree with it, or you don't, and if you don't you have a disagreement. It may be an amicable one: it may have now reached a position where the various parties now agree: but that is no reason to say that such a case is not a disagreement. I can see what you are saying in one situation. If the four players agree on nine tricks and the scorer writes down ten then apparently it is a L79C case [error in tabulating the agreed-upon score]. In the more common case where the scorer writes down his opinion of how many tricks were made we have a subsequent disagreement and L79B applies. The example that you give [dummy not following the play] appears to be a L79B case: he had a different opinion as to the number of tricks. The reason for his different opinion is not relevant. -- 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 Nov 13 03:28:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:28:23 +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 DAA29513 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:28:13 +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 AA199978337; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:32:17 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.Uqss.uquebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA208758334; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:32:14 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:53:40 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Exposed cards by declarer (Was L79B) 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, =20 Ave- may be a practical solution at the club level, but I think it is not the right decision according to Laws. =20 Let assume S was declarer at 4S. W (the legal leader) and E lead simultaneously. Law 58 says that the legal leader (W) has leaded first. So this lead stands and the card played by E becomes a major penalty card accordind to Law 50. =20 Then declarer spread his hand. After a lead out of turn it would be simple. Law 48B would apply and declarer would become dummy. =20 Here it is not after a lead out of turn but after a legal lead by W. I think S remains declarer. He takes back his cards and play. E must play his exposed card at the first legal opportunity (including on opening lead) and declarer may use options of Law 50 (lead penalty) when applicable. =20 Laval Du Breuil =20 =20 Michael Farebrother wrote: >So, at my local Cartesian bridge club last night, the following =20 >situation occurred. Y+ has won the contract in 4S. X- leads, =20 >simultaneously to X+, and then Y+ starts putting dummy down. At this =20 >point they all stop and the point TD_1 is called, who vectors to =20 >(0+delta,0+delta) wrt the offended table... > >Michael. =20 > >So I made it up. What happens anyway? =20 I find that Ave- all four sides covers this one quite nicely... =20 Norman =20 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com =20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 05:11:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:11:02 +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 FAA29808 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:10:54 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id NAA02240; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA01059; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:14:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811121814.NAA01059@csb.bu.edu> Subject: corrrection of inadvertant designation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:14:52 -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 Hi-- An incident at our club the other night made me wonder how long the "without pause for thought" condition in L45C.4b lasts. Declarer had a situation equivalent to AKx (in hand) and Qxx (in dummy) in spades. Declarer called for "spade" from the board. Dummy did what he was supposed to, RHO followed, and declarer played a low spade from hand, apparently allowing RHO to win the trick. Suddenly (before LHO played) declarer noticed that dummy had played the low spade. She claimed she had called for the high spade, but all three other players agreed that a "spade" was called for. Declarer then claimed that she had misspoken. The director was summoned. Looking at the hand, there is no conceivable reason why declarer would have ducked a spade. It is clear that declarer must have thought she was playing a high spade from dummy. L45C.4b states, under the heading "Correction of Inadvertant Designation": "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertant designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another." The phrase "without pause for thought" has been interpreted to mean more than instantaneous correction, in situations where the corrector clearly had not given the issue more thought (I recall a case where an opponent pulled an incorrect and meaningless bid out of the box and looked away into space for 30 seconds before looking back and noticing her mistake. There was no question of her intentions. A correction was allowed). (1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling? (2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause that it is too late to correct? --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 10:12:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:12:02 +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 KAA00565 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:11:45 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0ze5xi-0003Qe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:15:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:13:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have sent Bobby Wolff two separate emails, but he answered with one long one. Since these articles are going to be long enough anyway, I am splitting them into my questions, and the relevant part of each of Bobby's answers. ---------------------------------- Hi Bobby Rather than a new set of questions, these are all secondary, in that they emanate from your answers to the last set. ---------------------------------- Question 1 After you wrote: : We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse : talents, morals, motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to : create a level playing field we MUST eliminate the following insidious : trio of i's: : 1. intimidation : 2. intentional convention disruption : 3. inactive ethics. Nick Hills of Sussex, England, wrote: >My own personal opinion (for what it is worth) is that the game must be >played (including Appeals etc.) according to the laws of bridge as >written, and that if Bobby Wolff feels that they are inadequate for >dealing with 1, 2, and 3 above, he should be using his power and >influence to re-write them appropriately. Jan Kamras wrote: >With all due respect to Bobby's opinions on what is best for bridge, >does it not lead to anarchy if everyone on an AC is allowed to put their >own spin on the Laws (not mentioning enforcing concepts such as "active >ethics" which are not part or the rules governing the event in question) >when deciding cases? > >Particularly since Bobby admits the ruling has no support in the >present laws, is he not concerned that it sends the wrong message to >AC's, TD's and players alike, particularly considering the position of >authority he holds? Others expressed a similar opinion. Perhaps you could comment on this? ---------------------------------- Question 2 After you wrote: >If pairs are going to >psyche (their legal right). they should be judged to have a special >ethical responsibility to bring their particular opponents up to >everything they know about their partner's bidding. It's tedious >sometimes, but in the long run wonderful for bridge. After all, if all >the naysayers believed that it was incredible for EW not to know what is >going on, the legality dictates that it is up to the director first and >then the committee to make that determination. Here our verdict was to >say that this particular pair did not know. Alan Jaffray wrote: >In other words, you have a right to psyche as long as your opponents >are not fooled?! > >You have an obligation to tell the opponents everything you know about >your partner's bidding; if that was not the case here, that's one >thing, but simply succeeding in bamboozling them in the bidding is no >more an offense than a successful falsecard in the play. If N/S were >smart enough to figure it out while E/W weren't, working from the same >knowledge, then they deserve their good score. Result stands. Again, this is quite a popular view. Perhaps you would like to comment? ---------------------------------- Question 3 Jon Siegel of USA wrote: >I am an intermediate player--somewhat better than a novice but far below >expert. I am one of those players that people like Wolff claim to be >protecting with their rulings. On behalf of weaker players everywhere, I >would like to ask for less protection. One of the most exciting things >about bridge is that you can show up at a tournament, pay your entry fee, >and play against the best players in the world. There is no other sport >where this is possible. I usually play in the NLM game, but on those >occasions when I play in the open game, I want to experience the full rigor >of the competition. Psyches, false cards, complicated systems, play far >better than mine--I want it all. Hit me with your best shot. Don't make >nice. > >Tournament play is not about being nice. Polite, yes; nice, no. I have >never heard of any other sport in which the tournament officials penalize >strong players for playing their best against weak ones. Another common view. Put differently: Stefanie Rohan of Moscow, Russia wrote: > If a weak pair choose to play in a World=20 > Championship event 'for fun', should they perhaps not expect to get=20 > special consideration because of their level?=A0 If they wish to play= =20 > with the 'big boys' should they perhaps be subject to the same=20 > standards (not standards of skill, of course) as the rest of the=20 > field?=20 > > I am not,=20 > by any stretch of the imagination, a world-class player; but if the=20 > opportunity arose for me to enter a world championship event and=20 > play against all the stars of the world, it would be one of the=20 > greatest thrills of my life.=A0 It would be 'constructive' to deny me= =20 > this?=A0 Surely it is better to let the weaker players compete,=20 > knowing that they will be as responsible for themselves as any=20 > other players in the event, than to keep them out on the assumption=20 > that they will require and demand special treatment!=20 Do you really believe that a pair who enter a World championship event should receive protection from opponents doing things that are legal? You have suggested that EW were intimidated but it is very difficult to see what the intimidation was. My guess is that they would have been more intimidated if you had sat down to play against them because of your reputation. All that actually happened was that the opponents used a normal legal tactic that is not considered intimidating at tournament level and EW made a total mess of it, and then wanted the AC to give it back. Is this correct, and should we be giving this level of protection? ---------------------------------- Question 4 Roger Pewick of Houston, Texas, USA wrote: >As to the opponent's state of mind. If the contestant did not know >what was going on, how could they be intimidated? Is there some law or >regulation that skillful players must use the same agreements of less >skillful opponents so as to not be intimidating? > >As far as taking the effort to analyze one's opponents for the purpose >of determining how 'competitive to play against' I can't come up with >questions but I do have a comment or two. I have played against a lot >of opponents that acted like 'air heads' that could give the best pairs >in the world a run for their money. And I'm saying that both are >playing at the top of their game. I don't feel that players ought to be >compelled to accurately analyze the skill level of their opponents >before deciding whether to try to do their best. I say be courteous, >fair, always make your best bid, and your best play, and let the >resulting score determine the winner.=20 Do you really believe that players should make a determination of their opponents' skill level before deciding what action to take? ---------------------------------- Question 5 Julian Lighton wrote: >What infraction did NS commit that got them an adjusted score? Was it >use of a brown sticker convention, misinformation, or something else? At least that is an easy one! ---------------------------------- Question 6 You wrote: >I suspect the internet encourages a large proportion of aberrant >thinkers who aspire to be king instead of part of a group on a mission.=20 Discussion on the Internet includes the Chief Tournament Directors of Russia, South Africa, Wales, Denmark, top lawmakers Ton Kooijman, Grattan Endicott, Karen Allison, other well-known people like Bobby Goldman, Claude Dadoun, Alan LeBendig, Rick Beye, Reg Busch, Linda Weinstein, Jon Brissman. There are also a vast number of other people, some of whom are very sensible and clear headed. Not surprisingly, various people on the Internet have seen this as somewhat unnecessarily confrontational. I do, myself. The reason for this discussion is because, despite a world-wide feeling that you got this [and at least one other] appeal at Lille wrong, these people are prepared to give you the benefit of listening to you to see if you can convince them otherwise. Do you wish to comment? ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ............ [continued from separate article] We, the committee, decided that these particular opponents really did not know. We didn't consider what they would have done if they did know, but didn't think we necessarily needed to decide that question. This may help explain and begin to answer question 6 pertaining to my calling some people on internet "aberrant thinkers" causing me to be thought of as having a "confrontational" attitude. This may be the right place to present the following example as either my "calling card" or my "signature thinking": A pair playing Multi opens 2 diamonds, and it goes pass, 2 spades, 3 clubs around the table. If the Multi opener passes, that pass, of course, should (inferentially) and does show spades. To me an alert is not only proper it is mandatory. For anyone who doesn't agree (whether playing against beginners, intermediates, or experts) I think they should be put in bridge jail and never let out!!! If they do alert and then claim they have not discussed it, it becomes even worse. This sequence of events represents illicit maneuvering, usually by experienced players, which is so harmful to the game (In this case, bridgewise, it takes away the defense's cue bid). My role of either Appeals chairman, Chairman of the credentials committee or Recorder would cause me to tell them exactly what I thought, which would be evaluated by some as unnecessarily confrontational. I, of course disagree, and feel that this type of episode, if left unchecked, can eventually ruin the game. There is more I could say about what this does to the opponents, but I don't want to beat a "dead horse". First batch The philosophy behind these comments must be respected and cannot be ignored. Yes, in a perfect world, inappropriate laws should be re- written, yes, it could lead to a bridge anarchy of sorts if every appeals committee member is allowed to put his own "spin" on the laws, yes, considering the position of authority I hold I could be sending the wrong message. The alternative, however, is worse. Unfortunately there are some people around who are either self-serving, politically oriented, not competent, biased or more. While this is probably true in almost every organization, in bridge appeals it is fatal. It takes ten or more years to change a law and the good players like laws promulgated that favor their style. Many of the professional players give and receive favors from their colleagues. "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king." We must move forward to make us all use both eyes, especially in the high-level game. We will be watched and questioned by some of the lower-level people with the goal of implementing improvements there, but for the time being we are only concerned with our top games. =20 Bridge at the top has changed radically in the last years. Creators have taken advantage of the rules to bid a lot defensively, catering to the vulnerability with the goal of making it difficult for the opponents. This theoretically is positive, but what really happens is usually the opposite. Many years ago, if a player had forgotten a convention he was usually part of the side with most of the high cards. Consequently an honest forget usually achieved a poor result. In the present environment, it has changed so that today a pair playing a convention quite often has a very weak distributional hand making it so that a forget, accompanied by a misdescription may even, and often does, help the conventioneers by confusing the opponents. I think we owe it to each other to: (l) not use new methods without knowing them well enough to not forget and explain them properly and completely, (2) properly disclose both the positive and negative inferences from the new weak wonder bids, (3) not scrutinize our 60+ year old laws with the hope of taking advantage of them (4) learn to play the game by taking advantage, not of the weak points, but of the time honored beauties of bridge. What are those beauties? How about: A. The use of bidding to describe as much about your hand as possible, B. Play and defense emphasizing technique, inferences, intelligence, legal signaling and a contract with the opponents that they must keep you fully informed about all of their understandings, C. Judgment based on problem solving, experience and partnership, and D. A fierce determination to strictly follow the ethical code of the laws, and realizing that bridge, being an open partnership game with "rules catering to gentlemen", is unlike any other competition. To accomplish this goal we must put pressure on everyone to conform and must either write or interpret the laws to that effect. Unfortunately our laws are currently written by intellectuals assuming that all our players play to glorify bridge, not just to win. We need to change the focus in order to survive. That focus needs to emphasize keeping up with the expert game, together with the ability to make changes quickly. I certainty do not want to abuse any power that I hold. We just need to see the problems as they exist. Many of our top-level players do, but they are self-interested in winning by creating any advantage they can and it's doubtful that they will change willingly. It is only in a forum such as this that the message can even be intelligently discussed.. All other sports have professional umpires and referees, well schooled in the rules and devoted to doing nothing else. In bridge most tournament directors would rather be top players and furthermore administrators choose to be administrators because they usually have limited playing abilities. When top players serve on appeals committees often there is bias against direct competitors, fueled by glory, nationalism and money. In some cases, add to that their constant struggles for their best partner and team (who may be the present appellee or appellant) and it becomes difficult for them to be straight. On the positive side the success of the Active Ethics program, the constant improvement of full disclosure (not just giving away ice in the winter time) world-wide, the significant reduction of cheating (illegal signaling) by players, partners and teams and mostly the unwavering support of the silent majority in almost every endeavor should make the "good guys" optimistic about the future. I believe that anyone who has been active in bridge as long as I have sees and feels the progress. When I say a ruling (that I, of course, believe in) has no support in the laws, I mean that there is nothing specifically in the laws to support it, but that the laws allow an interpretation that includes it, making it viable. All appeals committees currently have the right to interpret with a worthwhile goal of having this privilege soon pass to TDs. For now TDs are probably best off ruling according to their strict interpretation of the laws. Shouldn't the players get the following message from us: If you believe in the beauty of bridge and approach the game honestly you are in the best possible hands. If you are not, or rather just believe that any "legal" maneuvering you can get away with should be sanctioned, you will be better off without us. Obviously there is a misunderstanding between Mr. Jaffray and me. Yes you can fool the opponents with a psyche (or other legal deception) but you are responsible for telling the opponents about all of your bidding understandings specific and implied. In the case in question the partner of the 2 club bidder did not volunteer that partner's bid usually connotes a psychic 1NT opening. Psyches are not intended to be "no risk". If the bidding develops in a fortunate way e.g. lNT pass 2 or 3 NT all pass and the opponents can make game more power to the psychers or if the bidding is distorted to the advantage of the psychers, good, but the opponents must be informed of every nuance of private understandings involved. Bridge is not like American football or European soccer where a player is not obligated to tell the opponents what strategy or play is being called. I applaud Mr. Siegal's enthusiasm and attitude. One hundred years ago when I was young, his seemed to be the prevailing attitude, but today sadly, many of the USA players like to play in games where the good players aren't. I am not intending to protect the weaker players any more than I want to protect everyone else. I am suggesting, however, that everyone's opponents disclose fully and in a language that will be understood by all. In the psychic 1NT case the stronger players were not being penalized because they were stronger, but rather because their lack of full disclosure was being questioned. The message is: "Play your best, but do so ethically." I'm not against weaker players playing in a World Championship (where else better to improve) and when they do they should get the same consideration as everyone else. The problem comes with the disclosure. It is indeed easier to explain or indicate to a sophisticated player what your bids mean, but if you are playing against an inexperienced player you have a special ethical responsibility to make sure he understands before you move on. Basically this is my whole message, but it is often misread. Mr. Pewick's question has been hashed and rehashed. The answer is no they shouldn't, but they must make sure their opponent's understand. NS were guilty of failure to properly disclose their implied agreement. Again this has been discussed. Several of the people you mentioned are among my favorites. They command respect with me because of their life ethics, intelligence, knowledge and just being good friends. From my point of view, until I realized the enormous misunderstanding that occurred, how could I have respect for people that criticized the psychic 1NT decision. However, if someone would say "Since it doesn't say somewhere that even though your past experience has shown to you that partner's 2 club takeout exposed partner's psychic I don't believe you have a legal obligation to tell the opponent's." I would understand, but my disagreement with them would go to what I think bridge is all about. Maybe I'm not right on this (for what it is worth, I've violated my own beliefs by not fully disclosing in my past), but if I'm not, please replace me, or at least convince me and I'll gladly retire, because without this, bridge competition has lost its appeal for me. Until then, please bring on the other appeal that people think I got wrong in Lille. Thank you for listening. Kind regards, Bobby Wolff =20 --=20 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 ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 10:11:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:11:42 +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 KAA00558 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:11:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0ze5xh-0003Qd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:15:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:12:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have sent Bobby Wolff two separate emails, but he answered with one long one. Since these articles are going to be long enough anyway, I am splitting them into my questions, and the relevant part of each of Bobby's answers. ---------------------------------- Hi Bobby Having had a look at the actions of the non-offending side, let us turn to the offending side. While there might be a number of questions, for this communication I want to ask the two most important as it seems to me. 1 What evidence did North-South have that their opponents were not as experienced as them? How were they meant to find out? Should they be finding out? What difference should it make? The reason for these questions is that your decision seems in great part to be based on the fact that East-West were inexperienced but I have seen no evidence to suggest that North-South knew this. 2 Given that the sequence 1NT x xx p 2C had never come up in this partnership before, how can you decide that they had an agreement about the sequence? This is the question that puzzles me most. Accepting your approach to ruling in appeals, as I do, I still cannot see why you ruled this one the way you did, since I have yet to see any infraction of any sort by North-South. ---------------------------------- Thank you for your enthusiasm and your continuity!! Allow me to answer the 2d missive first. By doing so, it will cut short the answers to the others because some of those answers will appear earlier. These questions smack at what I have had to deal with in the last few years. False information has been spread. In this case relevant facts and other information has been distorted. I'm not sure why and how, but here goes. It is impractical, if not downright stupid, for any person or pair to be overly concerned with the expertise or experience of their opponents, consequently a person or pair should adopt a procedure of treating all opponents equally. A better description of what the rule should be is: Tell all you can to every opponent, but in certain cases against players you know as experts short cuts can be taken (a grunt, a point or maybe even just eye contact). In this case, NS should tell any and every opponent that 2 clubs is 90+% to be a run-out from a psychic opening NT. When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was specifically told that South had not psyched before, but North had psyched an opening weak lNT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid in their system, hence a psychic." They never argued that they both didn't know or even doubted that 2 clubs was a psychic, rather they relied on that any pair playing in this event is sure to know without being told that 2 clubs is a psychic. We, the committee, decided that these particular opponents really did not know. We didn't consider what they would have done if they did know, but didn't think we necessarily needed to decide that question. This may help explain and begin to answer question 6 pertaining to my calling some people on internet "aberrant thinkers" causing me to be thought of as having a "confrontational" attitude. This may be the right place to present the following example as either my "calling card" or my "signature thinking": A pair playing Multi opens 2 diamonds, and it goes pass, 2 spades, 3 clubs around the table. If the Multi opener passes, that pass, of course, should (inferentially) and does show spades. To me an alert is not only proper it is mandatory. For anyone who doesn't agree (whether playing against beginners, intermediates, or experts) I think they should be put in bridge jail and never let out!!! If they do alert and then claim they have not discussed it, it becomes even worse. This sequence of events represents illicit maneuvering, usually by experienced players, which is so harmful to the game (In this case, bridgewise, it takes away the defense's cue bid). My role of either Appeals chairman, Chairman of the credentials committee or Recorder would cause me to tell them exactly what I thought, which would be evaluated by some as unnecessarily confrontational. I, of course disagree, and feel that this type of episode, if left unchecked, can eventually ruin the game. There is more I could say about what this does to the opponents, but I don't want to beat a "dead horse". .............. [continued in other article] -- 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 Nov 13 10:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:16:34 +1100 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 KAA00592 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:16:28 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.49.167]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981112232005.PKWZ9342@jay-apfelbaum>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:20:05 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01be0e92$b46cdd00$a7314f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "bridge laws mailing list" , "David Metcalf" Subject: Re: corrrection of inadvertant designation Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:17:35 -0500 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 Might I suggest the proper law is 46B: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertable):" In the facts presented below, declarer's incontrovertable intent must have been to play the Ace or King. Therefore, allow declarer to play an honor. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: David Metcalf To: bridge laws mailing list ; david metcalf Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 1:29 PM Subject: corrrection of inadvertant designation >Hi-- > >An incident at our club the other night made me wonder how long >the "without pause for thought" condition in L45C.4b lasts. > >Declarer had a situation equivalent to AKx (in hand) and Qxx (in dummy) >in spades. Declarer called for "spade" from the board. Dummy did what >he was supposed to, RHO followed, and declarer played a low spade from hand, >apparently allowing RHO to win the trick. > >Suddenly (before LHO played) declarer noticed that dummy had played the low >spade. She claimed she had called for the high spade, but all three other >players agreed that a "spade" was called for. Declarer then claimed that she >had misspoken. The director was summoned. > >Looking at the hand, there is no conceivable reason why declarer would have >ducked a spade. It is clear that declarer must have thought she was playing >a high spade from dummy. > >L45C.4b states, under the heading "Correction of Inadvertant Designation": > "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertant designation > if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, > in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in > designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card > so played and substitute another." > >The phrase "without pause for thought" has been interpreted to mean more >than instantaneous correction, in situations where the corrector clearly >had not given the issue more thought (I recall a case where an opponent >pulled an incorrect and meaningless bid out of the box and looked away >into space for 30 seconds before looking back and noticing her mistake. >There was no question of her intentions. A correction was allowed). > >(1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling? > >(2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to >correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does >declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause >that it is too late to correct? > >--David Metcalf > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 11:07:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:07:21 +1100 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 LAA00734 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:07:15 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811130007.LAA00734@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:10:35 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA256415832; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:10:32 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:10:31 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 12, 1998 11:12:59 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 Bobby Wolff's words: >When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was >specifically told that South had not psyched before, but North had >psyched an opening weak lNT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he >always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid >in their system, hence a psychic." I expect Beate to get really angry when she reads this crap. Do we now know the names of other members of that committee, so that we can confirm Mr. Wolff is a liar? North has psyched before in that partnership, but not 1NT, and the Lille case was the first time ever the sequence 1NT X XX pass 2C came up in that partnership. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 11:16:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:16:59 +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 LAA00771 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:16:34 +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 SAA14526 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:31:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981112191903.0079bdb0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:19:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 PM 11/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >They never argued that they both >didn't know or even doubted that 2 clubs was a psychic, rather they >relied on that any pair playing in this event is sure to know without >being told that 2 clubs is a psychic. We, the committee, decided that >these particular opponents really did not know. We didn't consider what >they would have done if they did know, but didn't think we necessarily >needed to decide that question. When does "general bridge knowledge" come into the equation? Perhaps this sequence is a bit too unusual for the psychic revealing 2C to be considered general bridge knowledge. But, certainly an auction like 1H-P-2D-P; P indicates something has gone wrong. We all know a psyche because of general bridge knowledge. Would responder be expected to alert opener's pass and explain that it is likely he has psyched? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 11:47:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:47:30 +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 LAA00843 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:47:23 +1100 Received: from modem44.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.172] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0ze7ST-0005VP-00; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:51:29 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L79B Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:46:26 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ============================= > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L79B > Date: 12 November 1998 12:28 > > Claude Dadoun wrote: ----------------------------------------\x/----------------------------------- ------- > David Stevenson: > I am not sure that I believe any of this. "If a subsequent > disagreement arises ..." tells you what to do when you have a later > situation where the players are not of one accord. In my view what was > written on the score sheet is part of that: either you agree with it, or > you don't, and if you don't you have a disagreement. It may be an > amicable one: it may have now reached a position where the various > parties now agree: but that is no reason to say that such a case is not > a disagreement. > > I can see what you are saying in one situation. If the four players > agree on nine tricks and the scorer writes down ten then apparently it > is a L79C case [error in tabulating the agreed-upon score]. In the more > common case where the scorer writes down his opinion of how many tricks > were made we have a subsequent disagreement and L79B applies. > > The example that you give [dummy not following the play] appears to be > a L79B case: he had a different opinion as to the number of tricks. The > reason for his different opinion is not relevant. > ++++ I agree with the position of David S. (NB:I must stop saying this.....GE) But his 'more common case' is actually a case where there was no agreed-upon number of tricks at the time the score was entered and the board quitted. So 'subsequent' is a loose word and the law possibly reads better without it. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. this thread seemed so innocent before it ran wild. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 11:47:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:47:31 +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 LAA00844 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:47:24 +1100 Received: from modem44.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.172] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0ze7SW-0005VP-00; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:51:32 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: L3 (was L79B) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:49:42 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ======================================= > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: L3 (was L79B) > Date: 10 November 1998 21:35 > > In article <3.0.1.32.19981110130608.006d0694@pop.mindspring.com>, > "Michael S. Dennis" writes > >At 01:29 PM 11/10/98 +0000, David S wrote: > >>Grattan wrote: --------------------------------\x/-------------------------------- > The Young Chelsea doesn't have a North. One is obliged to check at each > table where it is. Given also my propensity for odd movements like an 11 > table Worger movement with a rover (pairs up one, rover up two, boards > down 1, rover boards down 2), and partial penultimate round arrow > switching all compounded by the French Club's table numbering scheme > which is 1 7 2 8 3 9 4 10 etc., we can approximate total chaos. (who > needs a random shuffle?) Cheers John > +++++ You would have enjoyed yourself in the old days when I directed at the Liverpool Bridge Club. We did that and a number of variations. But talking of odd movements, there was one at a certain London club a lot of years ago - Peter Morley and I, visiting, were offered (and took) odds of 12-1 as unknown out-of-towners in a 13 or 14 table movement. We were sitting nicely at 69% half way through when the evening was abandoned because the boards had been passing through tables 11 and 12 between tables 4 and 5, I think. We never had the chance again. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 12:18:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:18:03 +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 MAA00924 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:17:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0ze7w4-00030D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:22:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:18:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L3 (was L79B) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+++++ You would have enjoyed yourself in the old days when I directed >at the Liverpool Bridge Club. On one occasion Grattan stood up and said "Tonight there will be no last round." > But talking of odd movements, Twenty-odd years ago I played in a European fund-raiser with Mike Swanson. Both of us promised to get there early, and we duly met on the steps of the Liverpool Adelphi hotel a mere five minutes after the start time. The Directors let us play, and we sat in East-West Yellow. The basic organisation of the event was in Grattan's hands - we were somewhat surprised to be in the only line who sat stationary throughout the event! -- 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 Nov 13 12:37:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:37:54 +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 MAA00957 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:37:49 +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 TAA21348 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:52:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981112204019.007c93e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:40:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981112191903.0079bdb0@maine.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 11/12/98 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 11:12 PM 11/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: Sorry, this was in David's post, but the words are Bobby Wolff's. >>They never argued that they both >>didn't know or even doubted that 2 clubs was a psychic, rather they >>relied on that any pair playing in this event is sure to know without >>being told that 2 clubs is a psychic. We, the committee, decided that >>these particular opponents really did not know. We didn't consider what >>they would have done if they did know, but didn't think we necessarily >>needed to decide that question. > >When does "general bridge knowledge" come into the equation? Perhaps this >sequence is a bit too unusual for the psychic revealing 2C to be considered >general bridge knowledge. But, certainly an auction like 1H-P-2D-P; P >indicates something has gone wrong. We all know a psyche because of >general bridge knowledge. This should have read: "We all suspect a psyche..." >Would responder be expected to alert opener's >pass and explain that it is likely he has psyched? > >Tim > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 13:08:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:08:49 +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 NAA01001 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:08:19 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcitm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.182]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16177 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:12:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981112210912.0069946c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:09:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981112191903.0079bdb0@maine.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 11/12/98 -0500, Tim wrote: >At 11:12 PM 11/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>They never argued that they both >>didn't know or even doubted that 2 clubs was a psychic, rather they >>relied on that any pair playing in this event is sure to know without >>being told that 2 clubs is a psychic. We, the committee, decided that >>these particular opponents really did not know. We didn't consider what >>they would have done if they did know, but didn't think we necessarily >>needed to decide that question. > >When does "general bridge knowledge" come into the equation? Perhaps this >sequence is a bit too unusual for the psychic revealing 2C to be considered >general bridge knowledge. But, certainly an auction like 1H-P-2D-P; P >indicates something has gone wrong. We all know a psyche because of >general bridge knowledge. Would responder be expected to alert opener's >pass and explain that it is likely he has psyched? > Yes, if this or a similar sequence (i.e., opener passing a first-round force with a psych) has come up more than once or twice in this partnership. No, if there is no particular partnership experience to back up such a conclusion. Your assertion that "we all know a psyche because of general bridge knowledge" is simply false, at least if you mean "we" to include bridge players at the level of intermediate and below. In fact, I don't know it, in the sense that in a particular situation I could credit unknown opponents with a simple error as easily as a psych. But if you _do_ have extra insight into this sequence as a result of prior experience with this partner, then you have an obligation to share it. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 14:53:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:53:34 +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 OAA01300 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:53:28 +1100 Received: from default (user-37kbm0e.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.14]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29017 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:57:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981112224137.006d4988@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:41:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <199811130007.LAA00734@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:10 AM 11/13/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: >Bobby Wolff's words: >>When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was >>specifically told that South had not psyched before, but North had >>psyched an opening weak lNT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he >>always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid >>in their system, hence a psychic." > >I expect Beate to get really angry when she reads this crap. >Do we now know the names of other members of that >committee, so that we can confirm Mr. Wolff is a liar? > >North has psyched before in that partnership, >but not 1NT, and the Lille case was the first time >ever the sequence 1NT X XX pass 2C came up >in that partnership. > This is completely over the top. I am fascinated by the question of how Mr. Wolff and just about everyone else have come to such strikingly disparate views about what was or was not said at the AC investigation about this core issue. But whatever the source of the discrepancy, the accusation of lying is going overboard. The only possible motive I can come up with for such a lie is that Mr. Wolff now realizes how bad the AC's ruling was, and is trying to justify it with a new story. But whatever else you can say about Wolff's legal judgements, you cannot fairly accuse him of reluctance to speak his mind, and I have little doubt that he is speaking the truth as he understands and remembers it. Perhaps he misunderstood the testimony at the time, or has possibly mixed up the facts of this case retrospectively with some other case. Whatever the cause, I wish that we could avoid the imputation of evil motives implicit in a charge of lying. FWIW, I think Bobby Wolff deserves some credit for his willingness to answer his detractors in a forum such as this, and would like to thank David for engineering this exchange. I haven't substantially changed my mind about his rulings: I am still very bothered by his inappropriate reliance on Active Ethics as a substitute for legal analysis, and object strenuously to the tenor of his earlier remarks about those who believe in the rule of law in bridge. But maybe a less personal line of attack would bear more fruit. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 16:53:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:53:57 +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 QAA01466 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:53:52 +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 VAA17010; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:57:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811130557.VAA17010@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:52:59 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: > > When does "general bridge knowledge" come into the equation? Perhaps this > sequence is a bit too unusual for the psychic revealing 2C to be considered > general bridge knowledge. But, certainly an auction like 1H-P-2D-P; P > indicates something has gone wrong. We all know a psyche because of > general bridge knowledge. Would responder be expected to alert opener's > pass and explain that it is likely he has psyched? > L40A speaks of "partnership understanding," while L40B speaks of "special" partnership understandings, but doesn't define "special," and L75 uses "special partnership agreements." Let's assume that only special partnership agreements need be disclosed, and that "special" is implicitly defined in the last clause of L70C: "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." Such inferences are not "special," and that includes inferences concerning calls that are redolent of a previous psych. The old saying was, "You have to tell the opponents about your partnership agreements, but you don't have to teach them bridge." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 19:54:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:54:02 +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 TAA01922 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:53:56 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00290 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:57:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364BE766.F7984680@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:01:42 +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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981112224137.006d4988@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > But whatever else you can say about Wolff's legal judgements, you cannot > fairly accuse him of reluctance to speak his mind, and I have little doubt > that he is speaking the truth as he understands and remembers it. Perhaps > he misunderstood the testimony at the time, or has possibly mixed up the > facts of this case retrospectively with some other case. Whatever the > cause, I wish that we could avoid the imputation of evil motives implicit > in a charge of lying. > > FWIW, I think Bobby Wolff deserves some credit for his willingness to > answer his detractors in a forum such as this, and would like to thank > David for engineering this exchange. I haven't substantially changed my > mind about his rulings: I am still very bothered by his inappropriate > reliance on Active Ethics as a substitute for legal analysis, and object > strenuously to the tenor of his earlier remarks about those who believe in > the rule of law in bridge. But maybe a less personal line of attack would > bear more fruit. > > Mike Dennis I second this opinion. Maybe we should let the appeal itself rest, and concentrate on what Bobby Wolff is trying to tell us. Even if we could now prove that the AC got its fact-finding mission wrong, that has no intrest. We should all try and understand the ruling when based upon the evidence as Bobby has now presented it. And even if, we, here, have a different opinion as to the quantitative measure of "completeness" of the answer "does not exist", we should draw the lesson that Bobby intends us to learn, namely that you should do your utmost to completely inform opponents, including the mention of psychic possibilities. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 19:53:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:53:29 +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 TAA01915 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:53:23 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00283 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:57:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364BDFFC.D1DD0143@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:30:04 +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: corrrection of inadvertant designation References: <199811121814.NAA01059@csb.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: > > > (1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling? > > (2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to > correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does > declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause > that it is too late to correct? > (1) Yes, clearly. As you all know, I have once changed the final contract after the lead - 1987 Laws, of course, the 1997 ones changed that possibility. (2) Only one problem : Was it clearly Declarer's "incontrovertible intention" to play the Queen ? I don't think so, and it can be at least as easily said it was his incontrovertible intention to win the trick at either side. I would not allow the change unless declarer can prove it was necessary to stay at the table after the playing of the Queen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 20:35:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:35:54 +1100 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 UAA01994 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:35:45 +1100 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 JAA23085 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:39:22 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 JAA22099 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:39:07 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113094013.007e11e0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:40:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:12 12/11/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > I have sent Bobby Wolff two separate emails, but he answered with one >long one. Since these articles are going to be long enough anyway, I am >splitting them into my questions, and the relevant part of each of >Bobby's answers. > >This may be the right place to present the >following example as either my "calling card" or my "signature >thinking": A pair playing Multi opens 2 diamonds, and it goes pass, 2 >spades, 3 clubs around the table. If the Multi opener passes, that >pass, of course, should (inferentially) and does show spades. To me an >alert is not only proper it is mandatory. For anyone who doesn't agree >(whether playing against beginners, intermediates, or experts) I think >they should be put in bridge jail and never let out!!! If they do alert >and then claim they have not discussed it, it becomes even worse. This >sequence of events represents illicit maneuvering, usually by >experienced players, which is so harmful to the game (In this case, >bridgewise, it takes away the defense's cue bid). > I think this is a very good example of how far agreement disclosure should go and I a m very happy to be presented an example in which I can show my difference of sensibility with Bobby Wolff's, even if it could result in my going to jail for the rest of my life. IMHO the Multi opener's pass should not be alerted because the whole information necessary for the opponents to be able to understand the auction as well as the Multi side, lies in the description of the 2S bid: when the opponents are told 2S means willingness to compete to the 3 level if opener has hearts but not if he has spades, they should be completely aware of the inferences to deduct from further actions. I think agreement disclosure should not be equivalent to exempt opponents from thinking or to teach them how to play bridge. I shall go further: even if opponents don't ask the signification of the properly alerted 2S bid, it would still be correct, mandatory and highly ethical not to alert opener's pass, independantly of the strength and the experience of opponents. Bridge should remain a reflexion game, a mind contest not a reflex contest: if you play an unusual system in which your succesive bids show a balanced hand, then no 4-card major, then 5 clubs, you should not have to tell your hand is 3325, even if your opponents are only accustomed to standard systems and Stayman auctions. You give them the pieces of information but you don't make additions and substractions for them, independant of the fact you think they can't make them. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 13 21:12:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:12:06 +1100 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 VAA02076 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:11:46 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811131011.VAA02076@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:07:24 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA042221641; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:07:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:07:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981112224137.006d4988@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 12, 1998 10:41:37 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 Michael S. Dennis: > >At 01:10 AM 11/13/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: >>Bobby Wolff's words: >>>When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was >>>specifically told that South had not psyched before, but North had >>>psyched an opening weak lNT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he >>>always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid >>>in their system, hence a psychic." >> >>I expect Beate to get really angry when she reads this crap. >>Do we now know the names of other members of that >>committee, so that we can confirm Mr. Wolff is a liar? >> >>North has psyched before in that partnership, >>but not 1NT, and the Lille case was the first time >>ever the sequence 1NT X XX pass 2C came up >>in that partnership. >> >This is completely over the top. I am fascinated by the question of how Mr. >Wolff and just about everyone else have come to such strikingly disparate >views about what was or was not said at the AC investigation about this >core issue. But whatever the source of the discrepancy, the accusation of >lying is going overboard. I am not accusing him of lying, I want to confirm whether he is lying. Should be easy to find out. >The only possible motive I can come up with for >such a lie is that Mr. Wolff now realizes how bad the AC's ruling was, and >is trying to justify it with a new story. I agree that it is hard to come up with a reason why Mr. Wolff is conjuring up false facts from thin air. I think it is absurd to assume Mr. Wolff's version can be correct (in a sense which has any relevance to the ruling, see below). When you psyche 1NT, the auction does not always go 1NT X XX pass. Furthermore, the system N/S play allows for effective multi-like preempts with weak 4-4 hands, so why should he psyche 1NT with such hands? I consider the possibility of Mr. Wolff being lying, because the claim that N testified before the AC that he had bid 1NT X XX pass 2C at least five times before shows up in this statement of Mr. Wolff for the first time, but not, say, in his statement in the Lille bulletin. (Technically, Mr. Wolff's statement might be considered correct, if twisted the following way: "N has admitted before the committee that he psyched 1NT before. The sequence 1NT X XX pass never came up. When it did come up, however, N always ran to 2C") It is obvious that such a point would be central to the Lille case. If it would be true, certainly Mr. Wolff would have emphasized it every time he made a statement about that case. He didn't, which for me rules out the possibility of a misunderstanding. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 00:39:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:39:38 +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 AAA04764 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:39:32 +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 IAA14715 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:58:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:46:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 AM 11/9/98 -0600, Grant wrote: >> I think this misses Wayne's point, which is that it is inherently >> inconsistent and unfair to impose PPs on pairs who have had the misfortune >> to be the opponents of pairs who file rejected appeals, while pairs who >> have committed the identical procedural violation but have not been >> involved in such appeals receive no such penalty. > > In my state, the use of seatbelts is mandatory. Nevertheless, it >is considered too invasive to allow police officers to stop cars just to >check to see if the people in them are wearing their seatbelts. As a >result, fines for not wearing setabelts are only imposed on people who >have already been pulled over _for some other reason_. This means that, >for example, if I am pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, and then >it is discoverd I am not wearing the seatbelt, I can be fined, even if the >officer decides later that the evidence shows I was not driving drunk. > I do not regard this as unfair. If I don't want to pay the fine, >the simple expedient if to wear my seatbelt. If you don't want to be hit >with a PP, don't violate proceedure. Insightful analogy, and I agree with it. But it's the TD who's analogous to the copper, and we're talking about penalties imposed by the AC. It's fair and reasonable for a TD called to the table to find no adjustment based on no damage but give a PP to the OS. But when the cop cites a driver for drunk driving and doesn't cite him for not wearing his seatbelt, it would be totally out of line for the traffic court judge to find him innocent and then say "but I'd like to punish him somehow... Mr. Officer, was he wearing his seat belt?" For a TD *not* to issue a PP is a much a decision under the authority granted by L90 as for him to do so. In our example cases, and in general, nobody has appealed that decision, which means that the AC is exceeding the authority granted to them by L93 ("In adjudicating appeals the committee may...") if they overrule it. Just as the judge would be exceeding his authority by fining the motorist for an offense with which he was not charged by the state. 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 Nov 14 00:46:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:46:23 +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 AAA04784 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:46:17 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcmlc.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.172]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA11283 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:50:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113084653.006dc19c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:46:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <199811131011.VAA02076@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19981112224137.006d4988@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:07 AM 11/13/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: >I consider the possibility of Mr. Wolff >being lying, because the claim that N testified >before the AC that he had bid 1NT X XX pass 2C at least five >times before shows up in this statement of Mr. Wolff for >the first time, but not, say, in his statement in the Lille bulletin. > It is not the first time that Wolff made this claim. My information on the decision was based on the reference originally provided by David: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm At this site, you will see that Wolff claimed that North had used this sequence "many times" in an earlier writeup. Again, I don't know more about the facts of the case than what I have read on this thread. Obviously you know some of the players involved and may well be more knowledgable about the truth than Mr. Wolff. But his current statement of the facts is not new. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 00:56:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:56:26 +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 AAA04805 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:56:20 +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 JAA15208 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:15:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113090336.0071a6d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:03:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL alert systems: WAS Natural, artifi In-Reply-To: <364742CA.65BD0B3D@idt.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19981109092943.0070e1d8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:30 AM 11/9/98 -0800, bigfoot wrote: >I believe you have an excellent point, Eric. One thing I have been >wondering about: why does everyone seem to think that a list of >non-alertable bids has to comprise a complete, playable bidding system? >If we were to have the rule (solely as a for instance) that we don't >alert negative doubles, transfer bids, and ace-asking bids, but must >alert other (another for instance) non-natural bids, we haven't come >close to describing a bidding system, but are on the way to an alert >system that might be playable. Of course, most many wouldn't be happy >with such a list, but it could simply be a list of artificial bids that >are so common as to be the "rule", rather than the exception. This >presumably would vary in different SO's, but so what? Irv has hit the nail on the head. There is a widespread (and, IMO, very silly) belief that the lack of an alert should, by itself, be sufficient to provide one's opponents with certainty as to the meaning of the call, i.e. that every call should carry one and only one precise non-alertable meaning. That runs contrary to the whole philosophy of alerts, which is that alerts should be given when a call carries an unusual, uncommon or unexpected meaning, one that the opponents might not be expected to be familiar with. It is not surprising that players who believe this notion of only one non-alertable meaning for every bid are confused by the ACBL's (and others') alert procedures, or that they often wind up saying "the only way to be sure of not violating the rules is to alert everything". I've heard this even from TDs, who surely should know better. 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 Nov 14 01:27:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:27:31 +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 BAA04853 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:27:22 +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 JAA16683 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:46:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113093437.00715d60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:34:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <01BE0C01.C7984BA0@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 11/9/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >The occasionally rude bridge player is not threatening the lives of >everyone he comes near. The alcohol impaired driver is. We do not need Zero >tolerance for peccadilloes in bridge...enforcing the laws with common sense >would suffice. The drunk driver is another kettle of fish. At a minimum he >must be stopped from any further driving in his impaired condition, and >strongly deterred from continuing such potential suicidal or homicidal >conduct. There are others measures than imprisonment available...a fine and >a rehab program are probably superior in many cases, with a license >suspension or revocation available for any repetition. But this is an >example of a true Zero Tolerance situation, mandated by the consequences of >failure to aggressively enforce the law. If you have ever seen the mangled >wreckage, both human and automotive that drunk driving (and reckless >driving even when not impaired) can produce, perhaps a visit to the local >hospital emergency room and a good size automotive body shop might be a >sobering experience. No offence intended...but you have stepped on a corn >with your choice of example, and should I let it pass I would feel >responsible if any on list should suffer misadventure by letting driving >while impaired appear to be condoned. Sorry if my choice of analogy offended Craig (or anyone else). My personal opinion is that alcohol-impaired driving has been artificially elevated to a hot-button issue by the widespread availability of breathalyzers, just as, previously, speeding was the hot-button issue when radar guns became cheap and easy for the police to get. I believe that anyone who drives *as though* they were alcohol-impaired should be taken off the road; it should have nothing to do with what's in their blood. My point was simply that a b-a level of 0.05 does not necessarily make someone an impaired or irresponsible driver (although someone else with the same b-a level might be), any more than a violation of the ACBL's ZT policy necessarily makes someone an obnoxious person who will drive others away from organized bridge. A traffic cop's job is to stop people from driving irresponsibly or dangerously, just as a TD's job is to stop people from being unacceptably obnoxious at the table. Neither function is served by substituting arbitrary, albeit easy to apply, rules for intelligent judgment. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 01:35:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:35:51 +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 BAA04893 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:35:41 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:38:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-117.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.117] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:37:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364CC3E9.6C37@wanadoo.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:42:33 -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: L79B References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: >>I am not sure that I believe any of this. "If a subsequent >>disagreement arises ..." tells you what to do when you have a later >>situation where the players are not of one accord. In my view what >>was written on the score sheet is part of that: either you agree with >>it, or you don't, and if you don't you have a disagreement. The headings are not part of the law. When I read L79 without heading A and B It looks to me than L79 is written when an agreement is establish. It is stronger with the word "subsequent". As TD I prefer this interpretation. Otherwise this law looks to much severe (David's ruling for table 1). David decides than the travelling score sheet prouves the agreement. In fact players were unlucky to have only one official form. It is not always the case. In team match it happen often than two teams bring different score. The TD cannot say "no increase score" and he will not use L79B even after the end of the round (match). He will just try to find out what was the agreement at the table. amicalement, From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 02:10:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:10:55 +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 CAA05287 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:10:46 +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 KAA18063 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:12:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113100023.007173f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:00:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <199811092214.JAA11580@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19981106114220.006dcd30@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 11/9/98 +0100, af06 wrote: >According to Michael S. Dennis: >> >>It seems to me that the AC decision was probably appropriate. The statement >>"Does not exist" was non-responsive. > >Please provide a ruling for the following case: > >S W N E >1NT X XX pass >2C* pass pass Whatever. > >* alerted by N to E as "S probably has psyched 1NT, I expect her >to have less than 10 HCP". S, however, had a minimum 1NT opener >with a 6card C suit and E/W get whacked now. The ACBL has embarked on an education campaign to try to get players to understand that when their opponents ask about a call, L75 requires them to answer the question "What does that call, by agreement, mean?", not "How are you going to interpret that call?" Unfortunately, however, when it comes to implicit agreements and knowledge gained from prior partnership experience in areas for which no explicit agreements exist, this can call for some very fine distinctions. I have been known to answer an opponent's question with something like "We don't have any agreement about that. If you'd like, I can tell you what I think it means based on inferences from other agreements we do have, but there's no guarantee that I'll get it right." (I know better than to offer the latter unasked.) Such responses are generally received in the spirit in which they are offered, and opponents usually decline my offer to guess what partner's doing -- they know all about flailing around in mid-auction, even if the law (and the believers in "convention disruption") doesn't recognize it as relevant to one's disclosure obligations. Perhaps the law could be interpreted to permit some procedure that allows for a distinction between disclosure of actual agreements, subject to redress for MI, and speculation designed to help the opponents understand how inference and experience *might* shed some light on the interpretation of an undefined-by-system call (a la "active ethics"), which they can take into account at their own risk. 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 Nov 14 02:12:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:12:12 +1100 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 CAA05301 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:12:06 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811131512.CAA05301@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:16:05 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA100540162; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:16:02 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:16:02 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981113084653.006dc19c@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Nov 13, 1998 08:46:53 AM 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 Michael S. Dennis: > >At 11:07 AM 11/13/98 +0100, Thomas wrote: > >>I consider the possibility of Mr. Wolff >>being lying, because the claim that N testified >>before the AC that he had bid 1NT X XX pass 2C at least five >>times before shows up in this statement of Mr. Wolff for >>the first time, but not, say, in his statement in the Lille bulletin. >> >It is not the first time that Wolff made this claim. My information on the >decision was based on the reference originally provided by David: > >http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lille7.htm > >At this site, you will see that Wolff claimed that North had used this >sequence "many times" in an earlier writeup. That's from his writeup for the ACBL casebook a few weeks ago. There, he still claims that it is "his *opinion* that N used 2C as a runout from a psyched 1NT 'many times before'", and it reads to me as he arrived at this conclusion because he knows that N has some experience with psyching. I am really worried how Mr. Wolff's statements change with time. >From his first statement in the Lille bulletin (see webpage above): "It became apparent that the man in the N/S partnership had psyched some number of times. [...] However, the bidding developed in a way that the man was reasonably sure his partner had psyched. The committee thought this should be told to the opponents as partnership information." No mentioning at all of psyches of 1NT! Just that N has some experience in psyching. Note that this version is in accordance with Mrs. Birr's version. Does someone have the complete text of Mr. Wolff's Lille bulletin version available? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 02:25:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:25:20 +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 CAA05339 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:25:13 +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 KAA19795 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:44:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113103230.007173f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:32:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 11/10/98 +1100, Peter wrote: >This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. >Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. > - > - > Q > J >- 5 >- - >KJ - >- Q > - > - > 98 > - > >Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. >The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 >therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. >How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is >irrational. Ruling stands. Errors that appear to result from mis-remembering the played cards or mis-reconstructing the concealed hands are careless or inferior, but not irrational. Perhaps E thought that S held -/-/Ax/- while W held -/-/K/x, in which case the CQ would lose a trick. I see a very clear distinction between a play that "is irrational" and one that "would be irrational *if* we assume that the player correctly remembered every card that was played". >Does the level of competence of EW affect your decision? No. Even the best players sometimes mis-remember a card or mis-reconstruct the hands. Even I do. Once we start to allow judgments that "he's so good that that play would be irrational *for him*" we start to lose the distinction between "less than theoretically perfect" and "irrational". In real life, if W were clever enough to know what everybody had -- clearly necessary to making the judgment that E would surely play the CQ because it would be irrational for him not to -- he would be clever enough to wait until it hits the table before he claims, simply to avoid having to defend his judgment. He can't claim he was simply saving time, since he can't defend his partner's taking any significant amount of time to decide to make what he claims is the only rational play. The reality of the situation is that W thought it didn't matter what E played from his remaining two cards, and was wrong, and is now arguing that even though he got the reconstruction wrong it would be irrational for his partner to do so. It sounds to me like a typical BL making a typical after-the-fact legal argument, and I have little sympathy. 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 Nov 14 02:37:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:37:19 +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 CAA05388 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:37:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zeLLY-0000Ka-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:28:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.5.32.19981113094013.007e11e0@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981113094013.007e11e0@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >Bobby Wolff wrote: >>This may be the right place to present the >>following example as either my "calling card" or my "signature >>thinking": A pair playing Multi opens 2 diamonds, and it goes pass, 2 >>spades, 3 clubs around the table. If the Multi opener passes, that >>pass, of course, should (inferentially) and does show spades. To me an >>alert is not only proper it is mandatory. For anyone who doesn't agree >>(whether playing against beginners, intermediates, or experts) I think >>they should be put in bridge jail and never let out!!! If they do alert >>and then claim they have not discussed it, it becomes even worse. This >>sequence of events represents illicit maneuvering, usually by >>experienced players, which is so harmful to the game (In this case, >>bridgewise, it takes away the defense's cue bid). > I think this is a very good example of how far agreement disclosure should >go and I a m very happy to be presented an example in which I can show my >difference of sensibility with Bobby Wolff's, even if it could result in my >going to jail for the rest of my life. > IMHO the Multi opener's pass should not be alerted because the whole >information necessary for the opponents to be able to understand the >auction as well as the Multi side, lies in the description of the 2S bid: >when the opponents are told 2S means willingness to compete to the 3 level >if opener has hearts but not if he has spades, they should be completely >aware of the inferences to deduct from further actions. I think agreement >disclosure should not be equivalent to exempt opponents from thinking or to >teach them how to play bridge. I shall go further: even if opponents don't >ask the signification of the properly alerted 2S bid, it would still be >correct, mandatory and highly ethical not to alert opener's pass, >independantly of the strength and the experience of opponents. Bridge >should remain a reflexion game, a mind contest not a reflex contest: if you >play an unusual system in which your succesive bids show a balanced hand, >then no 4-card major, then 5 clubs, you should not have to tell your hand >is 3325, even if your opponents are only accustomed to standard systems and >Stayman auctions. You give them the pieces of information but you don't >make additions and substractions for them, independant of the fact you >think they can't make them. This seems to me an unfortunate approach to the game, and this article more than any other one I have read shifts my thinking towards Bobby's. We are playing a game where we try to beat opponents by the accuracy of our constructive bidding, the judgement of our defensive bidding and our ability in playing the cards. We are not trying to beat opponents by confusing them as to the meaning of our bids. Perhaps it would be a nice game if a 1NT opening showed 6-9 with a six-card major, and we did not tell the opponents, but it would not be Bridge. Whatever you think of Bobby's detailed reasoning, there is a Special Ethical Responsibility on everyone who plays this game to avoid as far as possible gaining in any way through keeping opponents in the dark about the meaning of their auction. Methods of informing opponents are covered by the Laws and the SO's regulations, and sometimes an inefficiency in the alerting procedure may unfortunately misinform opponents. If that is so, then so be it: it is not your fault. But your intention should always be to keep opponents informed *fully* and *accurately* about your methods. Once you have played a convention for a time you can make deductions from the bidding. Often these seem obvious when they eventually occur to you, but they may not be obvious to people who do not play them. It is not right to hide behind the fact that the deductions can be made. It is not impossible that other people may deduce differently from you anyway, and Bobby's example is a case in point. 2D[Multi] p 2S[hearts] 3C p: are you quite sure there is no-one who plays this as either major? I bet there is! Maybe simply because they have not thought it through. Perhaps they only took the Multi up yesterday. Whatever. Not everyone will have the same logic. But if you *know* that the pass shows spades then you are required to alert it because the pass is conventional, and failure to do so does mean that you are misinforming opponents. Your second example is rather different. If your bids show a balanced hand, no four card major, and five clubs, then it is fair to assume that an opponent can work out without difficulty that the hand is 5332, and it is less clear that you should tell them. But why not tell them? It is still easier for you to make deductions from sequences you understand fully than for opponents, even if [as in this case] there is only one possible logical conclusion. Keep your opponents fully informed - 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 Sat Nov 14 02:49:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:49:40 +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 CAA05422 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:49:32 +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 LAA21048 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:08:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:56:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <000601be0caf$f6e0f2a0$d23563c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 PM 11/10/98 -0000, David wrote: >Moreover, the opening bidder clearly does not "always have to pass". >If she has psyched, she does not have to pass - and, from what she >herself wrote in an earlier message, she might choose not to pass if >her 1NT opening was based on a sub-minimum point count with long >clubs, a hand that shge was prepared to treat as a 1NT opening until >it got redoubled. The difficulty is, as always, that if one judges by >the actions of the players and the statements of the players regarding >those actions, and by those alone (as one should in my opinion judge), >then the evidence is that NS's agreement is in fact: "South must pass >only if she has a balanced 11-13; if she has a 2 count, or even a 10 >count with long clubs, she may bid." Now, South has said that this is >not their agreement, since it would be their agreement only if there >were a prior history of such incidents, and I believe her. But what I >believe makes no difference - what NS did was exactly what they would >have done if they did in fact have the agreement that South would pull >a redouble with a psyche, and to rule on that basis seems perfectly >sensible. But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would *always* be the case that what they "did was exactly what they would have done if they did in fact have the agreement" to do it. David seems to be saying that any action by a player should be treated as though it was taken in accord with some partnership agreement, that telling opponents "we have no agreement about that" is itself a presumptive offense. 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 Nov 14 02:53:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:53:22 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com ([207.227.70.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05454 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:53:16 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zeLbE-001b6cC; Fri, 13 Nov 98 10:57 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:57:23 +0000 To: "bridge laws mailing list" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: corrrection of inadvertant designation In-Reply-To: <000a01be0e92$b46cdd00$a7314f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_2722244==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_2722244==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" But declarer has stated he misspoke and that his intention was to play the Queen from dummy. If there is any correction to be made it is to the card played from dummy, not the one from declarers hand. He NEVER intended to play the Ace or King to this trick. Since I wasn't at the table I have a hard time determining if "without pause for thought" should apply to dummy's play. I would suggest to declarer that he could avoid this kind of problem if he made a habit of completely specifying the card from dummy. John Nichols At 11:17 PM 11/12/98 , JApfelbaum wrote: >Might I suggest the proper law is 46B: > >"In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be >played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's >different intention is incontrovertable):" > >In the facts presented below, declarer's incontrovertable intent must have >been to play the Ace or King. Therefore, allow declarer to play an honor. > >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Metcalf >To: bridge laws mailing list david metcalf > >Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 1:29 PM >Subject: corrrection of inadvertant designation > > >>Hi-- >> >>An incident at our club the other night made me wonder how long >>the "without pause for thought" condition in L45C.4b lasts. >> >>Declarer had a situation equivalent to AKx (in hand) and Qxx (in dummy) >>in spades. Declarer called for "spade" from the board. Dummy did what >>he was supposed to, RHO followed, and declarer played a low spade from >hand, >>apparently allowing RHO to win the trick. >> >>Suddenly (before LHO played) declarer noticed that dummy had played the low >>spade. She claimed she had called for the high spade, but all three other >>players agreed that a "spade" was called for. Declarer then claimed that >she >>had misspoken. The director was summoned. >> >>Looking at the hand, there is no conceivable reason why declarer would have >>ducked a spade. It is clear that declarer must have thought she was >playing >>a high spade from dummy. >> >>L45C.4b states, under the heading "Correction of Inadvertant Designation": >> "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertant designation >> if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, >> in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in >> designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card >> so played and substitute another." >> >>The phrase "without pause for thought" has been interpreted to mean more >>than instantaneous correction, in situations where the corrector clearly >>had not given the issue more thought (I recall a case where an opponent >>pulled an incorrect and meaningless bid out of the box and looked away >>into space for 30 seconds before looking back and noticing her mistake. >>There was no question of her intentions. A correction was allowed). >> >>(1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling? >> >>(2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to >>correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does >>declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause >>that it is too late to correct? >> >>--David Metcalf >> >> >> >> > John S. Nichols --=====================_2722244==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
But declarer has stated he misspoke and that his intention was to play the Queen from dummy.  If there is any correction to be made it is to the card played from dummy, not the one from declarers hand.  He NEVER intended to play the Ace or King to this trick. 

Since I wasn't at the table I have a hard time determining if "without pause for thought" should apply to dummy's play.  I would suggest to declarer that he could avoid this kind of problem if he made a habit of completely specifying the card from dummy.

John Nichols

At 11:17 PM 11/12/98 , JApfelbaum wrote:
>Might I suggest the proper law is 46B:
>
>"In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
>played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's
>different intention is incontrovertable):"
>
>In the facts presented below, declarer's incontrovertable intent must have
>been to play the Ace or King. Therefore, allow declarer to play an honor.
>
>Jay Apfelbaum
>Pittsburgh, PA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Metcalf <metcalf@cs.bu.edu>
>To: bridge laws mailing list <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; david metcalf
><metcalf@cs.bu.edu>
>Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 1:29 PM
>Subject: corrrection of inadvertant designation
>
>
>>Hi--
>>
>>An incident at our club the other night made me wonder how long
>>the "without pause for thought" condition in L45C.4b lasts.
>>
>>Declarer had a situation equivalent to AKx (in hand) and  Qxx (in dummy)
>>in spades.  Declarer called for "spade" from the board.  Dummy did what
>>he was supposed to, RHO followed, and declarer played a low spade from
>hand,
>>apparently allowing RHO to win the trick.
>>
>>Suddenly (before LHO played) declarer noticed that dummy had played the low
>>spade.  She claimed she had called for the high spade, but all three other
>>players agreed that a "spade" was called for.  Declarer then claimed that
>she
>>had misspoken.  The director was summoned.
>>
>>Looking at the hand, there is no conceivable reason why declarer would have
>>ducked a spade.  It is clear that declarer must have thought she was
>playing
>>a high spade from dummy.
>>
>>L45C.4b states, under the heading "Correction of Inadvertant Designation":
>> "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertant designation
>> if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has,
>> in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in
>> designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card
>> so played and substitute another."
>>
>>The phrase "without pause for thought" has been interpreted to mean more
>>than instantaneous correction, in situations where the corrector clearly
>>had not given the issue more thought (I recall a case where an opponent
>>pulled an incorrect and meaningless bid out of the box and looked away
>>into space for 30 seconds before looking back and noticing her mistake.
>>There was no question of her intentions.  A correction was allowed).
>>
>>(1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling?
>>
>>(2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to
>>correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does
>>declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause
>>that it is too late to correct?
>>
>>--David Metcalf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
John S. Nichols
--=====================_2722244==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 03:03:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:52:21 +1100 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 BAA05096 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:52:00 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811131452.BAA05096@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:52:17 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA095998734; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:52:14 +0100 Subject: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:52:14 +0100 (CET) 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 Herman De Wael wrote: >Maybe we should let the appeal itself rest, and concentrate on what >Bobby Wolff is trying to tell us. > >Even if we could now prove that the AC got its fact-finding mission >wrong, that has no intrest. We should all try and understand the ruling >when based upon the evidence as Bobby has now presented it. I disagree. Let me explain why. One thing which bothers me a lot is the impression that Appeal's Committee are sometimes being abused as a political platform for the propagation of radical law changes the Chairman wants to put into effect. This then leads to a randomness in AC decisions, depending on who is Chairman. Furthermore, at an WBF championship, required law changes could easily be incorporated into the special regulations of the contest. I consider it against the laws of bridge if rulings are made according to the Chairman's private version of the laws rather than the law book combined with the published regulations of contest. With respect to this point, it is indeed important to check whether a) there was a misunderstanding at the hearing of the N/S pair, or the AC got its fact-finding mission wrong or b) the AC was presented the facts (including that the N/S partnership had no previous experience with that particular sequence) and then decided to rule against N/S *despite* of the facts presented. >And even if, we, here, have a different opinion as to the quantitative >measure of "completeness" of the answer "does not exist", we should draw >the lesson that Bobby intends us to learn, namely that you should do >your utmost to completely inform opponents, including the mention of >psychic possibilities. I can see the point here, but I nevertheless feel uncomfortable with that reasoning, because I had the impression that we all would be inclined towards ruling against N/S if the explanation were "1NT X XX pass 2C suggests a psyche" and then S came up with long clubs and normal 1NT strength, and E/W were damaged by that information (say, when E's decision whether to bid 3NT is influenced by his expectation whether partner might have extras or minimum). I don't think that it would be ok to rule against N/S in *both* this situation and the Lille case. Furthermore I want to emphasize that I consider it E's obligation to ask for details of the explanation "does not exist", and especially to ask for an explanation of the XX of 2C. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 03:52:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:52:05 +1100 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 DAA05698 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 03:51:56 +1100 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 QAA11133 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:55:34 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 QAA24572 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:55:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981113165629.007cd100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:56:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19981113094013.007e11e0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19981113094013.007e11e0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:28 13/11/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>Bobby Wolff wrote: > > > Once you have played a convention for a time you can make deductions >from the bidding. Often these seem obvious when they eventually occur >to you, but they may not be obvious to people who do not play them. It >is not right to hide behind the fact that the deductions can be made. >It is not impossible that other people may deduce differently from you >anyway, and Bobby's example is a case in point. 2D[Multi] p 2S[hearts] >3C p: .... >it is less clear that you should tell them. But why not tell them? It >is still easier for you to make deductions from sequences you understand >fully than for opponents, even if [as in this case] there is only one >possible logical conclusion. > OK, we agree Bobby Wolff's example is interesting and we have found a point of disagreement about how far to alert and inform opponents. Maybe it could be useful to try to get a consensus or, at least, a wide discussion on this basic point of the alert procedure (what to alert, what to explain, what to leave to the initiative of opponents' deeper inquiring) before returning to the discussion of more intricated issues? 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 Sat Nov 14 04:51:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:51:25 +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 EAA05913 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 04:51:18 +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 MAA27577 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:55:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981113103230.007173f0@pop.cais.com> References: <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:05:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 12:35 PM 11/10/98 +1100, Peter wrote: > >>This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. >>Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. >> - >> - >> Q >> J >>- 5 >>- - >>KJ - >>- Q >> - >> - >> 98 >> - >> >>Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. >>The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 >>therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. >>How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is >>irrational. and Eric replied: >Ruling stands. Errors that appear to result from mis-remembering the >played cards or mis-reconstructing the concealed hands are careless or >inferior, but not irrational. Perhaps E thought that S held -/-/Ax/- while >W held -/-/K/x, in which case the CQ would lose a trick. I see a very >clear distinction between a play that "is irrational" and one that "would >be irrational *if* we assume that the player correctly remembered every >card that was played". I'm not sure that responses like Eric's, involving East's possible mis-construction of the hand, are really addressing the original poster's issue here. Remember that declarer has already taken 7 tricks in the contract of 2Dx, and that East is looking at the trump Q in dummy. Under these conditions, East could argue that *regardless* of the rest of the cards, it would be irrational to play a spade, promoting North's diamond Q for the contract-fulfilling trick (unless West holds AK of trumps, in which case East's play doesn't matter). At IMP, or if the contract were 2 of a major doubled, I think this would be a powerful argument. At MP in a minor, there might be a significant difference in score between -180 and -280(-380), so East's argument would be somewhat weaker, but still worthy of consideration by the committee. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 05:12:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:12:56 +1100 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 FAA05987 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:12:48 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA05164; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:15:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.73) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005143; Fri Nov 13 12:14:53 1998 Received: by har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE0F07.7AC0DC80@har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:14:01 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE0F07.7AC0DC80@har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Lille Appeal Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:00:18 -0500 Encoding: 70 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de[SMTP:af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de] Thomas...who for some reason uses this strange group of characters instead of his full name on his posts...wrote: >> >>I expect Beate to get really angry when she reads this crap. >>Do we now know the names of other members of that >>committee, so that we can confirm Mr. Wolff is a liar? Mike Dennis replied:>This is completely over the top. I am fascinated by the question of how Mr. >Wolff and just about everyone else have come to such strikingly disparate >views about what was or was not said at the AC investigation about this >core issue. But whatever the source of the discrepancy, the accusation of >lying is going overboard. Thomas added in reply to Mike: I am not accusing him of lying, I want to confirm whether he is lying. Should be easy to find out. And I, Craig, write: Twice stating that you want to "comfirm Mr. Wolfe is a liar" and "confirm that he is lying" is most certainly an accusation, one at which I take considerable umbrage. Your attempt to parse in order to evade the potential consequence of your rather flagrant accusation makes me wonder if you are employed by the Clinton White House. You said it, and nothing short of an apology can begin to make up for it. For what it is worth, I have been somewhat appalled by Mr. Wolfe's committee decision in this case, based on the limited information at my disposal. When he courteously agrees to let us examine his point of view, it is rude beyond measure to launch a personal attack on him. You were not in that room...he was. Even if Beate were to comment, which she has, that does not mean that her version in untouched by any imperfection of memory, or more to the point that Mr. Wolfe's is not. They are the only two to post as to what went on, and their versions do differ, but I would not consider accusing EITHER of them of lying, nor should you. It is comments such as yours that lead to raised voices, anger and enmity. I am convinced that Mr. Wolff seriously intends to improve the ethics of the game; lying would be such an antithesis to this goal that it would be a most unlikely tactic to employ, since as you correctly assert there are several others who were present who would refute any such lie. To accuse him of lying accuses him of being a complete fraud in all that he stands for and a rather stupid one at that. That dog won't hunt. While someone has incorrect recollection of the testimony before the committee, there is no reason whatever to believe anyone is lying. Such an accusation is clearly a conduct and ethics violation by you, and if made in my presence in any ACBL contest would result in further action that could lead to a disciplinary hearing. Do NOT poison this list with such accusations in future please. I hope that Mr. Wolfe will accept the apology of the majority of the members of the list who wish to explore the merits of the case and understand the decision through civilised discussion. This name calling is fortunately the notable exception here. I hope that is will cease forthwith. I would consider continual personal attacks to be sufficient cause to have you uns-bscribed, although I am not the one who makes such decisions. As Michael mentioned, we all owe thanks to David for arranging this dialogue so we can all gain in understanding, and we all owe thanks to Bobby Wolff who in spite of being a target of criticism has taken the time to respond in a pleasant manner to the questions David has posed and to shed additional light on what led to the controversial decision. I for one would like to hear what he has to say about the other case. He has shown openness to disucssion and criticism in his comments; we should continue the dialogue. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 05:25:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:25:24 +1100 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 FAA06030 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 05:25:17 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28107 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:23:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811131823.MAA28107@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:23:18 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I can see the point here, but I nevertheless feel uncomfortable with that > reasoning, because I had the impression that we all would > be inclined towards ruling against N/S if the explanation were > "1NT X XX pass 2C suggests a psyche" and then > S came up with long clubs and normal 1NT strength, Not necessarily--see below. > and E/W were damaged by that information (say, when > E's decision whether to bid 3NT is influenced by > his expectation whether partner might have extras or minimum). > > > I don't think that it would be ok to rule against N/S in *both* > this situation and the Lille case. > I think NS should be ruled against if their explanation did not reveal that information which their partnership experience told them. If their partnership experience made the 'he psyched' explanation the likely one, then that's the explanation that should have been given. If it turns out the 'psyche' was actually just the abnormal club distribution, then I would _not_ rule against a NS pair in that case. If, OTOH, something in partnership experience suggests that the bid was made with long clubs, then _that_ should have been revealed, and I would not rule against a NS pair that gave that explanation and it turned out to have been a psyche. In order to rule against a pair in a case like this, one of two things must be present: a) They gave an explanation that ran contrary to their partnership experience. [They said "It's probably long clubs" when in fact their evidence from past history suggested it was a psyche, or v.v.] Or, b) They gave an explanation that was incomplete. Obviously, the actual Lille case cannot fall under 'a'--there was no explanation of the bid offered, and so there cannot have been an explanation that violated partnership knowledge. So the question reduces to this: did the explanation 'doesn't exist' sufficiently explain what this partnership could deduce about the bid given their partnership experience, or didn't it? Frankly, I'm not happy with 'doesn't exist'. I know for sure that some pairs would interpret 'doesn't exist' merely as 'we have no agreement about that' rather than as 'that bid explicitly violates our system'. [Yes, perhaps EW should have deduced from 'doesn't exist' plus 'partner must pass' on the previous bid that this is the case, but I am not of the 'give a minimal explanation and let the opponents deduce' school.] _IF_ this partnership had reason to suspect that the violation was a psyche rather than just a club suit, then the explanation was inadequate and I would have ruled in favor of NS. {I would not have given the ridiculous percentage ruling that was given, but would have used some actual judgement as to a result as the law suggests, but that's another matter.} In any case, I do not think 'doesn't exist' is sufficient, regardless. > Furthermore I want to emphasize that I consider it E's > obligation to ask for details of the explanation > "does not exist", and especially to ask for > an explanation of the XX of 2C. I generally agree, FWIW. But this is relevant only if you agree that the given explanation is inadequate as it stands. I suspect you do not wish to grant that. > Thomas > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 07:30:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:30:23 +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 HAA06254 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:30:16 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:32:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-27.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.27] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:32:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364D1709.44AA@wanadoo.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:37:13 -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: 45C4b References: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -Correction of inadvertent designation- "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." What if the player only "attempts to do so". example : the declarer said "small spade no sorry !" (he meant heart) When it happen I allow the player to change (if it is inadvertent). But it is strange than this law is not written the same way than L25A (only if he does so, "or attempts to do so", without pause for thought.) Is it just forgotten or the lawmaker(s) wanted to make a difference ? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 07:58:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:58:42 +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 HAA06327 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:58:35 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zeQMO-001b6cC; Fri, 13 Nov 98 16:02 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:02:23 +0000 To: Don Kersey From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Claim by defense - OK? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981113103230.007173f0@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19981110123315.00963ac0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_21022478==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_21022478==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:05 PM 11/13/98 , Don Kersey wrote: >>At 12:35 PM 11/10/98 +1100, Peter wrote: >> >>>This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback. >>>Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E. >>> - >>> - >>> Q >>> J >>>- 5 >>>- - >>>KJ - >>>- Q >>> - >>> - >>> 98 >>> - >>> >>>Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks. >>>The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5 >>>therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW. >>>How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is >>>irrational. > >and Eric replied: > >>Ruling stands. Errors that appear to result from mis-remembering the >>played cards or mis-reconstructing the concealed hands are careless or >>inferior, but not irrational. Perhaps E thought that S held -/-/Ax/- while >>W held -/-/K/x, in which case the CQ would lose a trick. I see a very >>clear distinction between a play that "is irrational" and one that "would >>be irrational *if* we assume that the player correctly remembered every >>card that was played". > >I'm not sure that responses like Eric's, involving East's possible >mis-construction of the hand, are really addressing the original poster's >issue here. Remember that declarer has already taken 7 tricks in the >contract of 2Dx, and that East is looking at the trump Q in dummy. Under >these conditions, East could argue that *regardless* of the rest of the >cards, it would be irrational to play a spade, promoting North's diamond Q >for the contract-fulfilling trick (unless West holds AK of trumps, in which >case East's play doesn't matter). At IMP, or if the contract were 2 of a >major doubled, I think this would be a powerful argument. At MP in a minor, >there might be a significant difference in score between -180 and >-280(-380), so East's argument would be somewhat weaker, but still worthy >of consideration by the committee. > But It is not East who has any argument to make. West made a claim and must defend that claim without seeing East's hand and without any assistance from East. To allow a claim by West that depends on perfect play by his partner goes beyound what I would allow. Even if West had made a statement that began "Because my partner will, of course, lead the Queen of Clubs ..." I still would not allow the claim. West simply can not know what his partner will lead. He might suspect. He might hope. But he can not know. John S. Nichols --=====================_21022478==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 05:05 PM 11/13/98 , Don Kersey wrote:
>>At 12:35 PM 11/10/98 +1100, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>This problem arose in a MP event and I would be interested in any feedback.
>>>Contract: 2Dx (S) declarer has 7 tricks lead with E.
>>>            -
>>>            -
>>>            Q
>>>            J
>>>-                  5
>>>-                  -
>>>KJ               -
>>>-                  Q
>>>          -
>>>          -
>>>          98
>>>          -
>>>
>>>Before E can lead W claims the last 2 tricks.
>>>The director is called to the table and rules that E might have lead the S5
>>>therefore 1 trick to NS 1 trick to EW.
>>>How would you rule when EW appeal. They claim that any play but CQ is
>>>irrational.
>
>and Eric replied:
>
>>Ruling stands.  Errors that appear to result from mis-remembering the
>>played cards or mis-reconstructing the concealed hands are careless or
>>inferior, but not irrational.  Perhaps E thought that S held -/-/Ax/- while
>>W held -/-/K/x, in which case the CQ would lose a trick.  I see a very
>>clear distinction between a play that "is irrational" and one that "would
>>be irrational *if* we assume that the player correctly remembered every
>>card that was played".
>
>I'm not sure that responses like Eric's, involving East's possible
>mis-construction of the hand, are really addressing the original poster's
>issue here. Remember that declarer has already taken 7 tricks in the
>contract of 2Dx, and that East is looking at the trump Q in dummy. Under
>these conditions, East could argue that *regardless* of the rest of the
>cards, it would be irrational to play a spade, promoting North's diamond Q
>for the contract-fulfilling trick (unless West holds AK of trumps, in which
>case East's play doesn't matter). At IMP, or if the contract were 2 of a
>major doubled, I think this would be a powerful argument. At MP in a minor,
>there might be a significant difference in score between -180 and
>-280(-380), so East's argument would be somewhat weaker, but still worthy
>of consideration by the committee.
>

But It is not East who has any argument to make.  West made a claim and must defend that claim without seeing East's hand and without any assistance from East.  To allow a claim by West that depends on perfect play by his partner goes beyound what I would allow.  Even if West had made a statement that began "Because my partner will, of course, lead the Queen of Clubs ..." I still would not allow the claim.  West simply can not know what his partner will lead.  He might suspect.  He might hope.  But he can not know.



John S. Nichols
--=====================_21022478==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 09:09:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:09:01 +1100 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 JAA06435 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:08:06 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811132208.JAA06435@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:08:53 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA162014932; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:08:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:08:52 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <199811131823.MAA28107@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> from "Grant C. Sterling" at Nov 13, 1998 12:23:18 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 Grant C. Sterling: > I think NS should be ruled against if their explanation did not >reveal that information which their partnership experience told them. If >their partnership experience made the 'he psyched' explanation the likely >one, then that's the explanation that should have been given. That's obvious. I think we all agree here. > In order to rule against a pair in a case like this, one of two >things must be present: > a) They gave an explanation that ran contrary to their partnership >experience. [They said "It's probably long clubs" when in fact their >evidence from past history suggested it was a psyche, or v.v.] Or, The problem is that TDs and ACs currently show a strong tendency to rule MI if partner's hand does not fit the description. For cases where psyches are an issue, I expect no pair to have detailed system notes on their partnership experience regarding a few past psyches. > b) They gave an explanation that was incomplete. > > Obviously, the actual Lille case cannot fall under 'a'--there was >no explanation of the bid offered, and so there cannot have been an >explanation that violated partnership knowledge. So the question reduces >to this: did the explanation 'doesn't exist' sufficiently explain what >this partnership could deduce about the bid given their partnership >experience, or didn't it? > Frankly, I'm not happy with 'doesn't exist'. I know for sure that >some pairs would interpret 'doesn't exist' merely as 'we have no agreement >about that' rather than as 'that bid explicitly violates our system'. >[Yes, perhaps EW should have deduced from 'doesn't exist' plus 'partner >must pass' on the previous bid that this is the case, but I am not of the >'give a minimal explanation and let the opponents deduce' school.] I consider the explanation "partner must always pass 1NT XX" to be sufficient to deduce that something very fishy is going on if opener bids 2C nevertheless. >> Furthermore I want to emphasize that I consider it E's >> obligation to ask for details of the explanation >> "does not exist", and especially to ask for >> an explanation of the XX of 2C. > > I generally agree, FWIW. But this is relevant only if you agree >that the given explanation is inadequate as it stands. I suspect you do >not wish to grant that. You are right, I won't. I agree that giving the explanation 'running to 2C does violate a systematic agreement' would be clearer than 'does not exist'. I think that giving such an explanation would be actively ethical, but I think that 'does not exist' together with the previous explanation is sufficient (assuming that the partnership agreement indeed is as described, and that there is no partnership experience where opener has previously used 2C as a runout from a psyched 1NT) and is neither incomplete information nor MI. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 09:19:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:19:30 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06492 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:19:25 +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 OAA00257 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA11570; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:25:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:25:29 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199811132225.OAA11570@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Demonstrably? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: demonstrably? North 5 K1083 J9832 Q108 West East Q74 K1098632 J9 76 Q64 7 AK762 543 South AJ AQ542 AK105 J9 None vul, matchpoints East South West North Pass 1H Dbl 2H 2S 3H Pass Pass 3S Pass Pass 4H Pass Pass Dbl All Pass E/W are a very strong pair (not that their bidding shows it on this hand). North/South are unknowns. In fact, N/S didn't appear at the committee, which is quite significant. E/W claim that South hesitated for several seconds before passing 3S. We do not know if South's 3H was invitational or non-forcing. South's hand appears to make it more likely to be invitational. We do not know if N/S were playing any convention raises over the double; 2H may have been wide-ranging; it may have been normal; it may have been limited by the failure to make a constructive raise via 2C. (If the latter, at least South's bidding makes some sense, but there was no alert ever, so that's a long shot.) In a vacuum, South's hesitation before passing 3S does not suggest that he was considering bidding 4H. Normally, the only reason to think is to consider doubling 3S. Looking at South's hand, I don't know why he didn't double, frankly. Anyway, it almost certainly doesn't "demonstrably" suggest bidding 4H over 3S. I think. But if not, why did North bid 4H? It seems to me that the hesitation suggested to North that 4H was more likely to be successful than passing would be. In the ACBL, as an AC, how would you rule? You cannot find out about N/S's methods; they have left the building, perhaps never to return during that tournament. In practice, the result was irrelevant; no ruling on this board could change any results. We did, however, adjust the score to 3S down 1. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 09:28:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:28:04 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06534 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:27:58 +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 OAA02510 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA11591; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:33:57 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:33:57 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199811132233.OAA11591@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: demonstrably? North 5 K1083 J9832 Q108 West East Q74 K1098632 J9 76 Q64 7 AK762 543 South AJ AQ542 AK105 J9 None vul, matchpoints East South West North Pass 1H Dbl 2H 2S 3H Pass Pass 3S Pass Pass 4H Pass Pass Dbl All Pass ------------------------------ Now that you've had time to think about the original problem, imagine this situation: Let's say that N/S had attended the hearing. North admits that South hesitated. He notes that 3H was, in fact, invitational, showing a balanced hand with good high cards (as no other second suit was bid). He claims he bid 4H because his partner didn't double 3S, so he envisioned a hand with 3 small spades, something like xxx AQJxx AQx Ax. 4H is cold on those cards. He argues that not to bid 4H would be a violation, as this time, partner's hesitation suggests defending rather than bidding on. How do you rule in this instance? --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 09:40:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:40:37 +1100 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 JAA06565 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:40:30 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.49.165]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19981113224404.NVHR21493@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01be0f56$d4fce460$a5314f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Fw: corrrection of inadvertant designation Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:40:10 -0500 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 Sorry, folks. Might have reversed the two hands. If declarer leads low from the AKx towards the Qxx and calls for a "spade", it is clear their incontrovertable intent is to play the Queen. Again, sorry for any confusion. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: JApfelbaum To: bridge laws mailing list ; David Metcalf Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:25 PM Subject: Re: corrrection of inadvertant designation >Might I suggest the proper law is 46B: > >"In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be >played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's >different intention is incontrovertable):" > >In the facts presented below, declarer's incontrovertable intent must have >been to play the Ace or King. Therefore, allow declarer to play an honor. > >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Metcalf >To: bridge laws mailing list ; david metcalf > >Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 1:29 PM >Subject: corrrection of inadvertant designation > > >>Hi-- >> >>An incident at our club the other night made me wonder how long >>the "without pause for thought" condition in L45C.4b lasts. >> >>Declarer had a situation equivalent to AKx (in hand) and Qxx (in dummy) >>in spades. Declarer called for "spade" from the board. Dummy did what >>he was supposed to, RHO followed, and declarer played a low spade from >hand, >>apparently allowing RHO to win the trick. >> >>Suddenly (before LHO played) declarer noticed that dummy had played the low >>spade. She claimed she had called for the high spade, but all three other >>players agreed that a "spade" was called for. Declarer then claimed that >she >>had misspoken. The director was summoned. >> >>Looking at the hand, there is no conceivable reason why declarer would have >>ducked a spade. It is clear that declarer must have thought she was >playing >>a high spade from dummy. >> >>L45C.4b states, under the heading "Correction of Inadvertant Designation": >> "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertant designation >> if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, >> in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in >> designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card >> so played and substitute another." >> >>The phrase "without pause for thought" has been interpreted to mean more >>than instantaneous correction, in situations where the corrector clearly >>had not given the issue more thought (I recall a case where an opponent >>pulled an incorrect and meaningless bid out of the box and looked away >>into space for 30 seconds before looking back and noticing her mistake. >>There was no question of her intentions. A correction was allowed). >> >>(1) would you have agreed with the "staring into space" ruling? >> >>(2) Would you allow a correction in this case, where declarers attempt to >>correct was clearly a misstatement and not a change of mind, or does >>declarers subsequent play to the trick constitute a sufficient pause >>that it is too late to correct? >> >>--David Metcalf >> >> >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 11:29:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:29:29 +1100 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 LAA06757 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:29:22 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA02040; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:32:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-07.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.103) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001850; Fri Nov 13 18:31:52 1998 Message-ID: <364CCF39.23DA@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:30:49 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix19.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably? References: <199811132225.OAA11570@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > In the ACBL, as an AC, how would you rule? You cannot > find out about N/S's methods; they have left the building, > perhaps never to return during that tournament. > Insufficient information. First, what did the director rule (in other words, what ruling is being appealed?) Second, what fact-finding did the director do when all the players were present? Third, what did the director conclude from his investigation, and did he justify his ruling to the AC? As a general rule, ACs will depend heavily on the TD for input when one side chooses not to appear. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 11:37:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:37:27 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06779 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:37:20 +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 QAA06570 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id QAA11970; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:41:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:41:53 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199811140041.QAA11970@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman wrote: (jonbriss@ix19.ix.netcom.com) |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |> |> In the ACBL, as an AC, how would you rule? You cannot |> find out about N/S's methods; they have left the building, |> perhaps never to return during that tournament. |> | |Insufficient information. First, what did the director rule (in other |words, what ruling is being appealed?) Second, what fact-finding did |the director do when all the players were present? Third, what did the |director conclude from his investigation, and did he justify his ruling |to the AC? Hah! The director ruled result stands. He did no fact-finding. At the AC hearing, he couldn't answer any of those questions. He made his ruling by the seat of his pants for no good reason, best I can tell. We asked him why he ruled as such; he had no useful response. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 12:06:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:06:59 +1100 Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06943 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:06:53 +1100 Received: from modem48.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.48] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zeUEv-0001Cu-00; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:11:02 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Law 7 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:59:06 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ============================================== > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 7 > Date: 10 November 1998 02:16 > > In article <9811091550.aa19358@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> ---------------------------------------------\x/------------------------------ ------------------ and this was written: > >Well, the dispute is about what is meant by "after play" in L7B2, and > >nobody has yet convinced me that "forever" is unambiguously the > >correct interpretation. (Question: If I play a match in a Swiss > >event, and the directors then assign us to the same table for the next > >match, as often happens, do I have to call the director and ask his > >permission to take the previous opponents' cards out of the board and > >reshuffle? Wouldn't that be a clear and unambiguous consequence of > >Law 7 under this interpretation?) > > I don't believe so. There is a new play period and Law 6A applies. > ++++ It seems to me that the Director has given his permission when he tells you to get on with the next match ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 13:41:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:41:28 +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 NAA07094 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:41:23 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zeViN-0005pY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:45:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:44:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North is Dealer. He opens 1C (strong, artificial and forcing) East passes. North pushes the bidding tray under the screen such that only the pass is visible. South passes. West who is aware that he cannot see North's call (and who does know the dealer on board 29) pulls the tray further through and the 1C bid becomes visible. South immediately picks up his pass and says "I wish to change my call" West calls the Director The CoC state the WBF screen regulations are in force. They are not to hand. You make a ruling (almost certainly incorrect as it happens) to allow play to continue, explaining that you will further rule when you have determined what the regulations are, and the offending side end up gaining one imp on the board. You eventually find the regulations and discover they're no significant help. You are aware of the limitation to the scope of Law 25B handed down in Lille, but decide that the passing of a forcing bid is in the same category as passing a cue bid and according retrospectively apply Law 25B, such that South is playing for, at best, -3 imps, based on the actions West would have taken had you chosen to apply the Law at the appropriate time.. At the end of the stanza you give this ruling (an adjustment from +1 to -3) and explain that you will seek further clarification as it is almost certainly a matter of Law and/or regulation. This would permit the referee to overrule me if necessary. That is where I now am. Can anyone, with a degree of certainty, please advise me on this. (DWS is away and Max - the EBU Chief TD - is unavailable) 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 Nov 14 19:51:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:51:44 +1100 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 TAA07610 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:51:37 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA15821; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:55:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:55:42 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > North is Dealer. He opens 1C (strong, artificial and forcing) > East passes. North pushes the bidding tray under the screen such that > only the pass is visible. South passes. > West who is aware that he cannot see North's call (and who does know the > dealer on board 29) pulls the tray further through and the 1C bid > becomes visible. > South immediately picks up his pass and says "I wish to change my call" > > West calls the Director > > The CoC state the WBF screen regulations are in force. They are not to > hand. > > You make a ruling (almost certainly incorrect as it happens) to allow > play to continue, explaining that you will further rule when you have > determined what the regulations are, and the offending side end up > gaining one imp on the board. > > You eventually find the regulations and discover they're no significant > help. > > You are aware of the limitation to the scope of Law 25B handed down in > Lille, but decide that the passing of a forcing bid is in the same > category as passing a cue bid and according retrospectively apply Law > 25B, such that South is playing for, at best, -3 imps, based on the > actions West would have taken had you chosen to apply the Law at the > appropriate time.. > > At the end of the stanza you give this ruling (an adjustment from +1 to > -3) and explain that you will seek further clarification as it is almost > certainly a matter of Law and/or regulation. This would permit the > referee to overrule me if necessary. Hello John Although I am on the other side of the world, I do sympathise with your problem. I agree that the original situation is a Law 25B and not a Law 25A situation. Law 25 is still in operation with screens, hence at the time of the director call it would have been appropriate to explain to South his options under 25B, including that if he withdrew his pass, -3 imps would have been his best possible result. However things have now moved past this point and I believe you are in Law 82C territory. Both sides are supposed to now be considered non-offending, if no rectification is possible. I don't know what the final contract at both tables was, I'll assume it was game with the difference of an overtrick. The most favourable likely result (given an initial correct ruling) for NS seems to be -3imps. The most favourable likely result for EW looks to be the table result. If this is a knockout match, both sides get the average of these two different imp scores. > That is where I now am. Can anyone, with a degree of certainty, please > advise me on this. (DWS is away and Max - the EBU Chief TD - is > unavailable) My two cents (pence) worth. I see you wrote this at 2.40 am. Does the match continue tomorrow or can you now wait for Max? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 20:02:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:02:20 +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 UAA07642 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:02:14 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:04:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-136.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.136] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:04:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364DC752.146@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:09:23 -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: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> <364B3DCD.3FE0@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me come back one more time on the interpretation of L79B. I think it is important to get an agreement on the meaning of this law. Important because TD's are dealing very often with it. I would like to explain why Vitold's and my interpretation is the correct one at least in pratice. In high level championships (in Lille for example and it is always the same in every EBL or WBF events), open and close room have a separate offical score form and captans bring it to scoring room separately. Often the two results are different. The scoring room is instructed to post the result issue from the offical sheet and find or wait for the teams to give a result agreement. And the players start to agree on the number of tricks made and sometimes the official sheet is wrong because the opposit side did not check it. The scoring always changed the final result (and nobody never complain). If David's interpretion is correct on L79B then all EBL and WBF events have an incorrect procedure and never followed the law. The scoring room should spleet the score written on the offical sheet. But when the imp on a board is different it shows the disagreement and the scoring room or TD just change the official score (even signed by two sides) WBF and EBL need to change the procedure or the law. To keep peace in those championships I suggest to change the interpretation by adding to L79b: "a subsequent NEW agreement" (I took the sentence from Herman DE WAEL) Amicalemnt, Claude Dadoun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 21:28:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:28:26 +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 VAA07905 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:28:19 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-244.uunet.be [194.7.13.244]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24845 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:32:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364D59E0.DA5DDC9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:22:24 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > At the end of the stanza you give this ruling (an adjustment from +1 to > -3) and explain that you will seek further clarification as it is almost > certainly a matter of Law and/or regulation. This would permit the > referee to overrule me if necessary. > I had almost the same case. I also ruled what I assumed would be wrong, but would allow play to continue. I later came back, told them the bid could not have been changed, and that the -3IMP cap should have applied. I did then rule under L82 that the cap would not be imposed. You however, have told players you were uncertain of your ruling, so I think you can still impose the cap. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 21:28:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:28:23 +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 VAA07896 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:28:14 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-244.uunet.be [194.7.13.244]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24806 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:32:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364D53D1.B342931B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:56:33 +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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would > *always* be the case that what they "did was exactly what they would have > done if they did in fact have the agreement" to do it. David seems to be > saying that any action by a player should be treated as though it was taken > in accord with some partnership agreement, that telling opponents "we have > no agreement about that" is itself a presumptive offense. > Yes it is. It is impossible to have absolutely nothing to tell about a bidding sequence, even if it "does not exist" or "never came up before". So these answers in themselves do constitute misinformation. That being said, I do not blame someone for giving these answers and not volunteer anything more. Rather, I would expect the opponent to press on if he really wants to know. I imagine that is what happened at the table in the Birr case. Although the answer "does not exist" in itself is not enough, if opponent does not press on, it should not be held against the German pair. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 14 22:31:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:31:58 +1100 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 WAA08009 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:31:50 +1100 Received: from p95s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.150] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zedzi-0002Mn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:35:58 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:36:48 -0000 Message-ID: <01be0fc3$1079a700$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 Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David or for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other side". It would appear that this did not happen. South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding tray. BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as regulation cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. IMO this is nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I would not apply. North has been careless, and South has been careless. I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West does not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. Is this any different from (without screens) 1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 3:14 AM Subject: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) > >North is Dealer. He opens 1C (strong, artificial and forcing) >East passes. North pushes the bidding tray under the screen such that >only the pass is visible. South passes. >West who is aware that he cannot see North's call (and who does know the >dealer on board 29) pulls the tray further through and the 1C bid >becomes visible. >South immediately picks up his pass and says "I wish to change my call" > >West calls the Director > >The CoC state the WBF screen regulations are in force. They are not to >hand. > >You make a ruling (almost certainly incorrect as it happens) to allow >play to continue, explaining that you will further rule when you have >determined what the regulations are, and the offending side end up >gaining one imp on the board. > >You eventually find the regulations and discover they're no significant >help. > >You are aware of the limitation to the scope of Law 25B handed down in >Lille, but decide that the passing of a forcing bid is in the same >category as passing a cue bid and according retrospectively apply Law >25B, such that South is playing for, at best, -3 imps, based on the >actions West would have taken had you chosen to apply the Law at the >appropriate time.. > >At the end of the stanza you give this ruling (an adjustment from +1 to >-3) and explain that you will seek further clarification as it is almost >certainly a matter of Law and/or regulation. This would permit the >referee to overrule me if necessary. > >That is where I now am. Can anyone, with a degree of certainty, please >advise me on this. (DWS is away and Max - the EBU Chief TD - is >unavailable) 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 Nov 14 23:44:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:44:13 +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 XAA08141 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:43:57 +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 OAA26021 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:46:20 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <002b01be0fcb$d799a120$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:39:35 +0200 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 Hi all! I would like to call your attention that is the little mistake in the file "change.doc" - (bridge.ecats.co.uk/WBF/downloads.htm :- The World Bridge Federation - information available for downloading. A version without the introductory pages but showing the changes in Word95 format called change.doc) In this file the word "need" in L79b is not shading, so the change "may" in Low87 to "need" in Low97 may be unknown for those TD who know Low87 and study only changes. May be anyone know another mistakes in this file? Sergej Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 02:36:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:36:16 +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 CAA10865 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:36:06 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA06528; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:39:57 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <364D43F2.1A7937D5@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:48:53 +0300 From: Eugene X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably? References: <199811132225.OAA11570@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jeff described a case - "hesitation then pass" Let me be allowed an old Kaplan example (sorry, but I do not remember it by heart): North East South West 1Spade - 2Hearts - 2Spades - 3Hearts 3Spades - 4Hearts - 4Spades - 5Hearts Pass (hesitational) Kaplan said that in the example hesitation did not add anything to the very sence of the Pass - it meant: "Partner, I do not know what to do. Make your decision, pls". That's why Kaplan allowed South to make any bridge action without restriction. Jeff's case is quite similar to Kaplan's. Moreover - Spade's singleton in South's hand even might tp prompt some Spade's length in North's hand From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 04:47:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:32:07 +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 EAA11695 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:31:25 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-5.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.101]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12888; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:34:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364DBE31.FC845E2D@idt.net> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 09:30:25 -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: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> <364D53D1.B342931B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm afraid I simply can't agree with Herman, just on the basis of my own experience. My wife, for instance, has never, in seven years, psyched a 1NT opening (or any other opening, for that matter). (Furthermore, I have had exactly one partner psych a 1NT opening (once) in the last 10 years, at least.) Should my wife and I have an auction like 1N-X-Pass (forcing a redouble in our methods), and she instead bid 2C, I would be totally mystified, and all the questioning in the world wouldn't get a speculation out of me. I would not consider it impossible that she psyched, and I suppose she might have mis-sorted her hand, or had a bidding box accident, but this observation might be greeted with a scathing comment (by my wife) in the post-mortem, since she is not given to those kinds of accidents either. So what am I supposed to do now? I think Herman's position is creating a catch-22 situation here, and it'll be especially bad if I happen to guess right! If I lose, I lose, but if I win I lose! This is bridge? Irv Herman De Wael wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would > > *always* be the case that what they "did was exactly what they would have > > done if they did in fact have the agreement" to do it. David seems to be > > saying that any action by a player should be treated as though it was taken > > in accord with some partnership agreement, that telling opponents "we have > > no agreement about that" is itself a presumptive offense. > > > > Yes it is. > > It is impossible to have absolutely nothing to tell about a bidding > sequence, even if it "does not exist" or "never came up before". > > So these answers in themselves do constitute misinformation. > > That being said, I do not blame someone for giving these answers and not > volunteer anything more. Rather, I would expect the opponent to press > on if he really wants to know. > > I imagine that is what happened at the table in the Birr case. Although > the answer "does not exist" in itself is not enough, if opponent does > not press on, it should not be held against the German pair. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 06:31:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:31:07 +1100 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 GAA12421 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:30:58 +1100 Received: from modem108.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.236] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zelTJ-0007Sk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:35:02 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 17:38:26 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ================================== > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Lille Appeal > Date: 13 November 1998 15:56 > > At 01:42 PM 11/10/98 -0000, David wrote: > ---------------------------------------\x/------------------------------------ ------ Eric wrote: > > But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would > *always* be the case that what they "did was exactly what they would have > done if they did in fact have the agreement" to do it. David seems to be > saying that any action by a player should be treated as though it was taken > in accord with some partnership agreement, that telling opponents "we have > no agreement about that" is itself a presumptive offense. > +++++ I an surprised that everyone seems to have got stuck on the 2C bid; one would suppose this suggests the opener has the sort of hand on which I opened 1NT last week - a hand with 9 or 10 of its points in a six card club suit. If the psyche is revealed to partner at this stage then disclosure is required. But when the 2C is doubled and opener redoubles for rescue it is now an open book that there is something wrong with the hand. This is excatly the kind of situation which the WBF Laws Committee has ruled does not constitute an understanding peculiar to that partnership but is to be considered a matter of universal bridge knowledge. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 07:33:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:57 +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 HAA12607 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:49 +1100 Received: from modem87.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.215] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zemSD-00026Z-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:37:58 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:14:47 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Lille Appeal > Date: 14 November 1998 09:56 > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would > > *always* be the case and then - was it Herman? - who said > It is impossible to have absolutely nothing to tell about a bidding > sequence, even if it "does not exist" or "never came up before". > ++++ ahem! what we should be discussing is disclosure of agreements. If there is no agreement, neither explicit nor from prior partnership experience, there is no disclosure statement to be made. The player should not then be saying anything and certainly should *not* be stating her conclusions in relation to unagreed action by partner. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 07:33:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:58 +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 HAA12606 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:49 +1100 Received: from modem87.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.215] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zemSF-00026Z-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:37:59 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:28:41 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 05 November 1998 01:00 > > > From: wayne burrows > > To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for > > appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow > > correct procedure. > > We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as > examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such > penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad > permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority > granted by L90A. > ++++ I just noticed Steve's remark. Law 90B is unlimited. It places no bounds upon the award of penalties. The words "but are not limited to" present an open door. The limitations, such as they are, find their expression in Law 90A. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 07:33:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:57 +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 HAA12605 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:33:48 +1100 Received: from modem87.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.215] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zemSB-00026Z-00; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:37:56 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Sergey Kapustin" , "BLML" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:00:21 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ===================================== > From: Sergey Kapustin > To: BLML > Subject: Re: L79B > Date: 14 November 1998 12:39 > > Hi all! > I would like to call your attention that is the little mistake in the file > "change.doc" - (bridge.ecats.co.uk/WBF/downloads.htm :- The World Bridge > Federation - information available for downloading. A version without the > introductory pages but showing the changes in Word95 format called > change.doc) > In this file the word "need" in L79b is not shading, so the change "may" in > Low87 to "need" in Low97 may be unknown for those TD who know Low87 and > study only changes. > May be anyone know another mistakes in this file? > Sergej Kapustin > ++++ Thank you for this. I was just about to note to Claude Dadoun that Law 79B says "No increase in score *need* be granted" - in other words it is now a matter for the discretion of the Director. Where the players make an uncorroborated statement that 8 tricks were made, not seven, and this has a significant effect on the ranking of the pair that is said to have a better score, the Director has the power to look deeply and if he is not wholly convinced he has discretion to leave that score stand whilst reducing the score of the other side. This is an invidious position to be in, and I am not altogether persuaded that the 1987 wording should have been abandoned in the 1997 laws. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 08:56:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:56:50 +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 IAA12875 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:56:45 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zenkS-00035B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:00:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:55:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David or >for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. >I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier >League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the >centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other >side". >It would appear that this did not happen. >South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding tray. >BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as regulation >cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. IMO this is >nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >would not apply. >North has been careless, and South has been careless. >I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West does >not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. >Is this any different from (without screens) >1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) I have now spoken with Max. he concurs with me that passing 1C (f) is in the same category as passing a cue bid. ... and Law 25B applies. His opinion was that my ruling was sound. 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 Sun Nov 15 10:04:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:04:23 +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 KAA13075 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:04:16 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA04564; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:08:25 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <364DAD12.D3E62775@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:17:23 +0300 From: Eugene X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably? References: <199811132225.OAA11570@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> <364D43F2.1A7937D5@elnet.msk.ru> <364DAB3F.5033B768@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Hi all:) > > > > While I was on my one more business-trip the computer got mad:)It named > himself as "Eugene" and atarted to cut my messages:)) > That's why I try to sent my post once more. > And I still cannot delete this "Eugene" name:))) > > Jeff described a case - "hesitation then pass" > > Let me be allowed an old Kaplan example (sorry, but I do not remember it > > by heart): > > North East South West > > 1Spade - 2Hearts - 2Spades - 3Hearts > > 3Spades - 4Hearts - 4Spades - 5Hearts > > Pass (hesitational) > > > > Kaplan said that in the example hesitation did not add anything to the > > very sence of the Pass - it meant: "Partner, I do not know what to do. > > Make your decision, pls". That's why Kaplan allowed South to make any > > bridge action without restriction. > > > > Jeff's case is quite similar to Kaplan's. Moreover - Spade's singleton > > in South's hand even might tp prompt some Spade's length in North's hand > > . > > > > So - I'd agree with TD's ruling. And might it be that the TD made better > > rulings than speaches about these rulings?:) > > > > Another pair of shose is the bidding of EW - I guess that final East's > > Pass (Jeff underlined that EW was strong pair) - instead of secrify > > 4Spades after two Passes of West - was rather strange and might be > > based on future fighting in AC (in case his Pass was wrong). Then even > > if I am in minority in AC (about NS's result) anyway I will try (after > > questioning East about his bidding) to make EW's result stand. > > > > Best wishes Vitold > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 10:14:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:14:34 +1100 Received: from www.nct.de (www.nct.de [195.30.109.244]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13140 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:14:22 +1100 Received: from mail.nct.de (maxi03.regensburg.netsurf.de [194.233.128.67]) by www.nct.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA13795 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:20:46 +0100 Message-ID: <364E100F.353DA53@mail.nct.de> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:19:43 +0100 From: "Hr. Stahl" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: curious appeal Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4DE128F048AFB7F4215C4BDF" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. --------------4DE128F048AFB7F4215C4BDF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------4DE128F048AFB7F4215C4BDF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="curious appealresponse1.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="curious appealresponse1.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www.nct.de id AAA13795 From - Sat Nov 14 21:14:45 1998 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <364DE069.EF05A1E0@mail.nct.de> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:56:25 +0100 From: "Hr. Stahl" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , "beate.birr" Subject: (Kein Betreff) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=3D"------------BFC339020D73= 385936A86C1D" --------------BFC339020D73385936A86C1D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi David I am the Partner of Beate in the "curious-appeal-case". I`d like to thank= you very much for all the effort you have already invested doing an excellent job of conducting the discussion. I=B4d also = like to thank Bobby Wolff for helping the discussion along by stating his rememberence of the facts and his views on why the c= omittee had to reach the ruling it did reach. I=B4d also like to thank Bobby Wolff for talking to Beate and me amiably just a= fter the 3rd qualifying session. We both had the impression, Bobby Wolff regretted the decision of the committee. So far i have not contributed to the discussion of the case. I will try t= o do so now, by writing up the facts of the committee-hearing as I remember them. I will also expand on what has been= written on what I knew or should have known from my side of the table in the way of partnership agreements of any type and th= us what I was able to tell east. 1. Bobby Wolff wrote: "When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was = specifically told that south had not psyched before, but North had psyched an openeing= weak 1NT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid in= their system, hence a psychic." I remember Beate telling the comittee truthfully when it was her first t= ime to speak and without being asked a specific question, that in the 6-year old partnership it was the first time she ev= er psyched at all. She added also truthfully on her own accord, that I sometimes do psyche, but that I had never psyched a 1N= T-opening in the partenership. (In the ongoing discussion the bidding of a hand was reported by Thomas as being the only= hand on record where I psyched in conjunction with a weak 1NT-opening. If we are talking of the same hand, the bidding did n= ot go 1NT x p 3NT..., but 1NT x 3NT (!!) ... vs. members of the german ladies worldchampion squad: I psyched the 3NT on a = distributional hand with diamonds and about 6 HCP. Bobby Wolff then quizzed me very intensivly about the information Beate h= ad just given. I confirmed everything my partner had said. Bobby Wolff then asked me, in what situations I do psyche. I told h= im, there aren`t any specific situations; when I do psyche, the psyches are such, that noone - including my partner - could o= r would be prepared for them. Bobby Wolff then asked me about my opinion of Beate`s 1NT-psyche. I told him, that I found it u= tterly crazy, so much so, that I had some trouble passing 2NT, because I wasn`t certain excacly what was going on (I`ll exp= and on this further down). Bobby Wolff then further asked me, in what situation I could imagine psyching a 1NT-opening. I tol= d him (here Beate`s account in the bulletin isn`t quite correct), that I could think of doing it with (exactly) one long su= it to run out to. (On hindsight, had I understood Bobby Wolff as specifically asking me when I could imagine psyching a 11-= 13 1NT, I`d have told him never, because then I as opener would usually just become a passenger in the further bidding proce= ss, even with a long suit to run out to.) Bobby Wolff then asked me, whether I thought it should be ones duty to te= ll the opponents of the fact, once one suspects partner to have psyched. I said no, as long as one has disclosed every partnership a= greement. (I should probably have repeated the fact, that the specific situation came up the very first time and thus we didn`= t even have any tacid agreement). After being quizzed in this way, Bobby Wolff said to me "you sure studied= the game", a remark further giving me the feeling from the way the hearing was going, that we wouldn`t have much success in= the case. 2. I went into the appealroom thinking, that since "at the end of the pl= ay east had summoned the T.D. complaining that after the opening bid of 1NT in first position N had not doubled 2NT and sugges= ted that they can control theit psychics", I would have to defend my decision passing 2NT. I had a fair case for that decisi= on in view of the x, the (forcing?: not alerted) pass and the 2NT by west, as well as the initial pass and the x by east and th= e actions by partner. But noone was interested as to such reasoning. Apparantly it was presumed by the committee, that my pass= was such an obious action in light of what was also apparantly presumed to be a partnership understanding, that rather I had = some kind of obligation to tell east of my presumed knowledge. This for me surprising approach of the committee caught me a b= it off balance and might be the reason, why Bobby Wolff came to state, that "they never argued that they both (?) didn`t kn= ow 2 clubs was a psychc..." (Bobby Wolff doesn`t claim - and rightly so - that I told the committee I knew the 2C to be a= psyche). The fact is, that I didn`t know 2C to be a psychic, not even after the xx= by Beate. I saw the hand like this: A few boards earlier we already had had a board where the opponents had = been caught for a zero by an xx by me after 1NT by Beate and x by west. So I was first somewhat surprised, when east now pas= sed (no alert) without apparent difficulties and then very disappointed, when the shuttle returned with my partner having bid 2= C and west having passed (no alert). I could think of nothing else but alerting partners call and giving the information that = the "bid doesnt exist, partner is required to pass" and to pass myself without quizzing east, as to whether either her pass = or her partners pass was forcing. East xed without trouble, which left me baffled as to what was going on. If I had read eas= t correctly, we didn`t seem to have a reasonable C-fit. When the shuttle returned again, I`d have been at loss for an unequivoca= l explaination to east, had she asked. I would have had to say, that we do on occasion play SOS-redoubles, but that she alon= e by virtue of the lenghth of her clubs could know for certain, whether the xx was SOS or buisiness. Had west passed, I`d ha= ve probably bid, but only because of the vibes I had picked up from east, believing she`d stay put in 2C xxed. But now I had to decide what to to over 2NT by west. After all, I had 2 m= ore points than I had promised. What hand could Beate possibly have? I never thought of the actual hand, because in my thinking she couldn`t h= ave influenced my bidding enough after virtually any biddingsequence including pass after the 1NT. (For example the tournament= director ruled as he did, because he thought the bidding sequence to be safe after a presumed x by west, because she could= follow up with 2C after xx. Apart from the fact, that -500 in 2D xed isnt what I`d call safe, this stands true only if eas= t also passes the xx. If she happened to bid, I=B4d have been in a forcing sequence) Beate also couldn`t really have a hand without clubs, because she couldn`= t be sure I`d take her xx as SOS. On the other hand why did west leave us off the hook at both sides not vulnerable, if inde= ed we were on it? Was he defending in advance against a presumed partscore in a major by our side? Thinking this could be happ= ening, I took Beate to have maybe a 4441-hand with 10 HCP. In this case E/W might be 1 or even 2 down in 2NT and still score w= ell against whatever partscore including 1NT we might have had without the strange bidding. But still I could not get myself to= double and with some regrets I passed. East now asked me again and again about the strenghth of 1NT and about my= strength, specifically asking me, whether my xx might not be SOS. I denied this and made certain to make it very clear t= o her, that I actually had 8+ points and had not only promised them. East did not ask for an explaination of the xx by Beate, s= he obiously in view of her own 5card-suit, her partners 2NT-call and her knowing the convention, taking this xx to be SO= S. Eventually she passed. I think I now know why she did so. It was my impression her being fully = aware that something was very wrong in the bidding. She had to be certain, that I had my 8+ points (if not and my partner had= coincidently run to 2C they`d get a revised score anyway). She also told the committee, that in her view one wasn`t allowed= to psyche in 1st position (again she`d get a revised score, which she actually applied for for excactly this reason). So in my= opinion, to her mind it had to have been her partner who had doubled 1NT on too few points. Why after all had he not given her= or himself the chance of either playing 2C xxed or doubling the opponents at the 2-level? Well, thats about it for now David. Thank you for indulging with me this = far. One remark on the play of the hand: I led the D2 (4th from at least the jack) and declarer stayed small from dummy giving = us 3 diamond-tricks. I hope to have shown, that the psyching side should not from the beginnin= g on be called the "offending side" and be treated as such. Thank you very much, Wolf Stahl --------------BFC339020D73385936A86C1D Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi David

I am the Partner of Beate in the "curious-appeal-case". I`d like to thank you very much  for all the effort you have already invested doing an excellent job of conducting the discussion. I´d also like to thank Bobby Wolff for helping the discussion along by statin= g his rememberence of the facts and his views on why the comittee had to reach the ruling it did reach. I´d also like to thank Bobby Wolff for talking to Beate and me amiably just after the 3rd qualifying session. We both had the impression, Bobby Wolff regretted the decision of the committee.

So far i have not contributed to the discussion of the case. I will try to do so now, by writing up the facts of the committee-h= earing as I remember them. I will also expand on what has been written on  what I knew or should have known from my side of the table in the way of partnership agreements of any type and thus what I was able to tell east.=

1.

Bobby Wolff wrote:

"When I asked in the commit= tee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was specifically
told that south had not ps= yched before, but North had psyched an openeing weak 1NT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid in their system, hence a psychic."

I  remember Beate telling the comittee truthfully when it was her first time to speak and without being asked a specific question, that in the 6-year old partnership it was the first time she ever psyched at all. She added also truthfully on her own accord, that I sometimes do psyche, but that I had never psyched a 1NT-opening in the partenership. (In the ongoing discussion the bidding of a hand was report= ed by Thomas as being the only hand on record where I  psyched in conju= nction with a weak 1NT-opening. If we are talking of the same hand, the bidding did not go 1NT x  p 3NT..., but 1NT x 3NT (!!) ... vs. members of the german ladies worldchampion squad: I psyched the 3NT on a distributio= nal hand with diamonds and about 6 HCP.

Bobby Wolff then quizzed me very intensivly about the information Beate had just given. I confirmed everything my partner had&n= bsp; said. Bobby Wolff then asked me, in what situations I do psyche. I told him, there aren`t any specific situations; when I do psyche, the psyches are such, that noone - including my partner - could or would be prepared for them. Bobby Wolff then asked me about my opinion of  Beate`s 1NT= -psyche. I told him, that I found it utterly crazy, so much so, that I had some trouble passing 2NT, because I wasn`t certain excacly what was going on (I`ll expand on this further down). Bobby Wolff then further asked me, in what situation I could imagine psyching a 1NT-opening. I told him (her= e Beate`s account in the bulletin isn`t quite correct), that I could think of doing it with (exactly) one long suit to run out to. (On hindsight, had I understood Bobby Wolff as specifically asking me when I could imagi= ne psyching a 11-13 1NT,  I`d have told him never, because then I as opener would usually just become a passenger in the further bidding proce= ss, even with a long suit to run out to.)

Bobby Wolff then asked me, whether I thought it should be ones duty to tell the opponents of the fact, once one suspects partner to
have psyched. I said no, as long as one has disclosed every partnership agreement. (I should probably have repeated the fact, that the specific situation came up the very first time and thus we didn`= t even have any tacid agreement).

After being quizzed in this way, Bobby Wolff said to m= e "you sure studied the game", a remark further giving me the feeling
from the way the hearing was going, that we wouldn`t have much success in the case.
 
2.  I went into the appealroom thinking, that si= nce "at the end of the play east  had summoned the T.D. complaining that after the opening bid of 1NT in first position N had not doubled 2NT and suggested that they can control theit psychics", I would have to defend my decision passing 2NT. I had a fair case for that decision in view of the x, the (forcing?: not alerted) pass and the 2NT by west, as well as the initial pass and the x by east and the actions by partner. But noone was interested as to such reasoning. Apparantly it was presumed by the committee, that my pass was such an obious action in light of what was also apparantly presumed to be a partnership understanding, that rather I had some kind of obligation to tell east of my presumed knowledge. This for me surprising approach of the committee caught me a bit off balance and might be the reason, why Bobby Wolff came to state, that "they never argued that they both (?) = didn`t know 2 clubs was a psychc..."  (Bobby Wolff doesn`t claim - and rightly so - that I told  the committee I knew the 2C to be a psyche).

The fact is, that I didn`t know 2C to be a psychic, no= t even after the xx by Beate. I saw the hand like this:

A few boards earlier  we already had had a board where the opponents had been caught for a zero by an xx by me after 1NT by Beate and x by west. So I was first somewhat surprised, when east now passed (no alert) without apparent difficulties and then very disappointe= d, when the shuttle returned with my partner having bid 2C and west having passed (no alert). I could think of nothing else but alerting  partn= ers call and giving the information that the "bid doesnt exist, partner is required to pass" and to pass myself  without quizzing east, as to whether either her pass or her partners pass was forcing. East xed withou= t trouble, which left me baffled as to what was going on. If I had read eas= t correctly, we didn`t seem to have a reasonable C-fit.

When the shuttle returned again, I`d have been at loss for an  unequivocal explaination to east, had she asked. I would hav= e had to say, that we do on occasion play SOS-redoubles, but that  she alone by virtue of the lenghth of her clubs could know for certain, wheth= er the xx was SOS or buisiness. Had west passed, I`d have probably bid, but only because of the vibes I had picked up from east, believing she`d stay put in 2C xxed.

But now I had to decide what to to over 2NT by west. A= fter all, I had 2 more points than I had promised. What hand could Beate possi= bly have?

I never thought of the actual hand, because in my thin= king she couldn`t have influenced my bidding enough after virtually any biddin= gsequence including pass after the 1NT. (For example the tournamentdirector ruled as he did, because he thought the bidding sequence to be safe after a pre= sumed x by west, because she could follow up with 2C after xx. Apart from the fact, that -500 in 2D xed isnt what I`d call safe, this stands true only if east also passes the xx. If she happened to bid,  I´d have been in a forcing sequence)

Beate also couldn`t really have a hand without clubs, because she couldn`t be sure I`d take her xx as SOS. On the other hand why did west leave us off the hook at both sides not  vulnerable, if indeed we were on it? Was he defending in advance against a presumed partscore  in a major by our side? Thinking this could be happening, I took Beate to have maybe a 4441-hand with 10 HCP.  In this case E/W might be 1 or even 2 down in 2NT and still score well against whateve= r partscore including 1NT we might have had without the strange bidding. But still I could not get myself to double and with some regrets I passed= .

East now asked me again and again about the strenghth of 1NT and about my strength, specifically asking me, whether my xx might not be SOS. I  denied this and made certain to make it very clear to her, that I actually had 8+ points and had not only promised them. Eas= t did not ask for an explaination of the xx by Beate, she obiously in view of her own 5card-suit, her  partners 2NT-call and her knowing the convention, taking this xx to be SOS. Eventually she passed.

I think I now know why she did so. It was my impressio= n her being  fully aware that something was very wrong in the bidding. She had to be certain, that I had my 8+ points (if not and my partner had coincidently run to 2C they`d get a revised score anyway). She als= o told the committee, that in her view one wasn`t allowed to psyche in 1st position (again she`d get a revised score, which she actually applied for for excactly this reason). So in my opinion, to her mind it had to have been her partner who had doubled 1NT on too few points. Why after all had he not given her or himself the chance of either playing 2C xxed or doubl= ing the opponents at the 2-level?

Well, thats about it for now David. Thank you for indu= lging with me this far. One remark on the play of the hand: I led the D2 (4th from at least the jack) and declarer stayed small from dummy giving us 3 diamond-tricks.

I hope to have shown, that the psyching side should no= t from the beginning on be called the "offending side" and be treated as such.
 
 Thank you very much, 
 

Wolf Stahl --------------BFC339020D73385936A86C1D-- --------------4DE128F048AFB7F4215C4BDF-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 11:55:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:55:00 +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 LAA13339 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:54:53 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:57:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-79.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.79] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:57:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364EA69E.7E21@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:02:06 -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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have now a new concept: stupid call. If you pass 1C forcing everybody will say than you are stupid. So we can apply L25B behind screens. If a player is ready to pay -3imps on a board then it must be "a stupid call". It is Ton Koijman concept and it must be almost always true. We may have a new problem when not using the screens. A player substitutes his call before calling for the TD who find out than the first call was not "a stupid call" Amicalement, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 12:27:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:27:58 +1100 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 MAA13414 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:27:51 +1100 Received: from p67s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.104] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zer2m-0002KB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:32:00 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:32:59 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1037$e132c880$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree that to pass a forcing 1C opening, maybe thinking is there a slam on here ,while answering oneself "probably not", passes, is indeed a use for Law 25B. However this player did not pass a 1C opening, he passed because he did not have the values to open. He was in the position, he thought, of opening the bidding, he did not know he was the responder. It was equally his fault, and the fault of his partner that this happened, and I contend that this is not a use for Law 25B. Anne. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 10:26 PM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >In article <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >>Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David or >>for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. >>I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier >>League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the >>centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other >>side". >>It would appear that this did not happen. >>South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding tray. >>BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as regulation >>cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. IMO this is >>nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >>would not apply. >>North has been careless, and South has been careless. >>I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West does >>not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. >>Is this any different from (without screens) >>1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) > >I have now spoken with Max. he concurs with me that passing 1C (f) is in >the same category as passing a cue bid. ... and Law 25B applies. His >opinion was that my ruling was sound. 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 Sun Nov 15 12:44:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:44:01 +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 MAA13447 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:43:52 +1100 Received: from ip14.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.14]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981115014755.HZSL6075.fep4@ip14.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:47:55 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L79B Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:47:54 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <364e2182.404832@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:00:21 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Thank you for this. I was just about to note to Claude Dadoun >that Law 79B says "No increase in score *need* be granted" - in other = words >it=20 >is now a matter for the discretion of the Director. Where the players = make=20 >an uncorroborated statement that 8 tricks were made, not seven, and this= has >a significant effect on the ranking of the pair that is said to have a = better >score,=20 >the Director has the power to look deeply and if he is not wholly = convinced >he has discretion to leave that score stand whilst reducing the score of= the >other side. This is an invidious position to be in, and I am not = altogether >persuaded that the 1987 wording should have been abandoned in the 1997 >laws. = ~ I find it a fine position to be in. I find the 1987 wording complety silly, at least if "subsequent new agreement" is interpreted as "subsequent disagreement" - if all four players now agree that declarer won 9 tricks, even though they hastily wrote down 8 earlier, and if the TD finds no reason to believe that one side has persuaded the other side wrongly (e.g., if they can convincingly describe the play of the cards), it is ridiculous to not change the score for both sides. Under the 1987 laws I did change such scores, ruling that a "subsequent new agreement" was not a "subsequent disagreement", but that interpretation seems to be in conflict with the reason that I now understand was behind the 1987 L79B. Conclusion: I'm quite happy with the current L79B. It allows me to increase the score in all the usual cases where the original score is clearly wrong and to not increase it if I should suspect that the original score was actually the correct one. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 13:41:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:41:15 +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 NAA13566 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:41:10 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zesBj-0004xi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:45:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 02:43:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <364EA69E.7E21@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <364EA69E.7E21@wanadoo.fr>, Claude Dadoun writes >We have now a new concept: stupid call. >If you pass 1C forcing everybody will say than you are stupid. >So we can apply L25B behind screens. >If a player is ready to pay -3imps on a board then it must be >"a stupid call". >It is Ton Koijman concept and it must be almost always true. > >We may have a new problem when not using the screens. >A player substitutes his call before calling for the TD who find out >than >the first call was not "a stupid call" > >Amicalement, >Claude Dadoun. as handed down by the WBFLC and then as handed down to me by Max Bavin, the purpose of Law 25B is to allow players not to play in, for example, a cue bid. He expressed the opinion that passing 1C (under the circumstances where a player has not seen the call of 1C because of a violation of screen procedure) is a similar situation and that it is an appropriate use of Law 25B, and the penalty is that one plays for A- or -3 depending on the scoring method. I don't dispute that the Law itself is a mess, but we are stuck with it -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 16:19:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:19:37 +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 QAA13935 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:19:30 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-15.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.181]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA10625 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:23:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364E65A4.124A0CB@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:24:52 -0500 From: "Nancy's Desk" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: ss finland challenge Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just visited Herman's Home page to see the results of the SS Finland bridge tournament. Wow!!! Is there any other event in the world that we have so much info about the boards that were just played? Maybe you folks overseas get this but we sure don't here. Again, hats off to Herman for an outstanding job with this event. Loads of thanks, Hermy . Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 18:24:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA14243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:24:36 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA14238 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:24:30 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981115072840.ETCT2383.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:28:40 -0800 Message-ID: <364E8356.F39B229D@home.com> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:31:34 -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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981112224137.006d4988@pop.mindspring.com> <364BE766.F7984680@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Maybe we should let the appeal itself rest, and concentrate on what > Bobby Wolff is trying to tell us. Or what about RW concentrating on what we are telling him? Or do we all have to fall in line behind the bandwagon, ie accept the "benevolent dictator" concept? > We should all try and understand the ruling > when based upon the evidence as Bobby has now presented it. But most of us do already agree, and the laws require, that agreements be fully disclosed even if implicit, so this purely hypothetical matter is totally uninteresting, imo. We didn't need this whole case (the real as opposed to the hypothetical ruling that is) to demonstrate what we all (well, almost all) already know. > And even if, we, here, have a different opinion as to the quantitative > measure of "completeness" of the answer "does not exist", we should draw > the lesson that Bobby intends us to learn, namely that you should do > your utmost to completely inform opponents, including the mention of > psychic possibilities. So why don't we invite him to hold lectures here, where he can preach at will, rather than put up with him attempting to "set examples" in real life cases (at a World Championship to boot) where he has to twist/adjust the facts in order to justify a certain ruling? (and I welcome any supporting evidence he can bring that supports his conclusion that completely contradict the testimony given. fellow AC members feel free to speak up). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 18:27:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA14269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:27:38 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA14264 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:27:32 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981115073144.ETIE2383.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:31:44 -0800 Message-ID: <364E840E.6C544716@home.com> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 23:34:38 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "beate.birr" CC: blml Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <004101be0a99$4c834d20$dcccd3c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Beate, When asked about why the AC felt your partnership had experienced this sequence (1NT-X-XX-P; 2C) several times before, Bobby Wolff is now stating that the testimony given during the AC-hearing was that You had never psyched before but that your partner had specifically psyched the 1NT opening, running out to 2C after being doubled, on several occasions (maybe 5). The previous write-up, and I beleive your own postings here, suggested the testimony was that, although your partner had psyched on several occasions, you had never had this type of sequence occuring where 1NT is psyched, doubled and redoubled, and opener runs-out to 2C. It is an uncomfortable situation but it seems both statements cannot be correct. I take it your position has not changed? For the other recipients, clearly this is a crucial matter to be clarified since the gist of the ruling hinges largely on what this particular NS might have known abt the sequence from previous partnership experience, rather than from "general bridge-knowledge", common sense or the like. It would be interesting to find out what the other participants in this AC meeting remember of the testimony. PS: It should also be noted that NS apparently have an escape-system when 1NT gets doubled, so presumably a sequence like 1NT-X-P-P;2C might have come up several times, but then it would be part of a *systematic* agreement, not neccesarily saying the 1NT opening was a psyche. If RW referred to such sequences and found them comparable, then.... well - I say no more. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 20:14:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:14:54 +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 UAA14519 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:14:48 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-221.uunet.be [194.7.9.221]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26710 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:18:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364D752E.BF224004@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:18:54 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David or > for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. Feel free to, your opinions are wellcome, but I think you are wrong. > I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier > League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the > centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other > side". > It would appear that this did not happen. > South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding tray. > BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as regulation > cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. It certainly is. > IMO this is > nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I > would not apply. Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". I feel that this includes both the passing of a cue-bid, and the not noticing of partner's (or opponent's) opening. > North has been careless, and South has been careless. > I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West does > not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. > Is this any different from (without screens) > 1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) > You mean that the inattentive passer is second behind the screen ? I don't think it is any different, provided he makes his wish known before the tray is passed. But even if the tray is passed, I think L25B can still apply, and the rescue from the "absolutely silly contract" to the Av- is still possible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 21:15:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:15:20 +1100 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 VAA14602 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:15:13 +1100 Received: from p2es12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.47] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zezH7-0003ff-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:19:23 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:20:18 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1081$8b73cbc0$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: Tony Musgrove To: Anne Jones Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 5:20 AM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >At 01:32 AM 15/11/98 -0000, you wrote: >>I agree that to pass a forcing 1C opening, maybe thinking is there a >>slam on here ,while answering oneself "probably not", passes, is indeed >>a use for Law 25B. >>However this player did not pass a 1C opening, he passed because he did >>not have the values to open. He was in the position, he thought, of >>opening the bidding, he did not know he was the responder. >>It was equally his fault, and the fault of his partner that this >>happened, and I contend that this is not a use for Law 25B. >>Anne. > >I agree with this if we are voting. Passing partners' 1C would be stupid = >L25B, not seeing partners' 1C bid and passing is stupid but not what the new >L25 is meant for, IMHO, > >Tony I am sure we are not going to vote on this! The contributors to this list discuss at length the their interpretation of the Laws. The WBFLC made a decision on how Law 25B was to be interpreted. So now we must discuss only, our interpretation of the interpretation. The wording from Lille:- It was the intention of this 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 a 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. In the example given by John Probst, where the player passed because he did not have the values to open the bidding in his system, and had to re-evaluate his hand when he realised that his partner had opened, I profer the opinion that he has has to rectify his judgement, and this is what the WBFLC specifically excluded. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 23:09:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:00 +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 XAA14761 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:08:53 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-149.uunet.be [194.7.13.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08054 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:13:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364EA263.69E5C0F3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:44:03 +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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> <364D53D1.B342931B@village.uunet.be> <364DBE31.FC845E2D@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Irv, others, I'm afraid you misunderstood the gist of what I was saying : Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > I'm afraid I simply can't agree with Herman, just on the basis of my own > experience. My wife, for instance, has never, in seven years, psyched a > 1NT opening (or any other opening, for that matter). (Furthermore, I > have had exactly one partner psych a 1NT opening (once) in the last 10 > years, at least.) Should my wife and I have an auction like 1N-X-Pass > (forcing a redouble in our methods), and she instead bid 2C, I would be > totally mystified, and all the questioning in the world wouldn't get a > speculation out of me. I would not consider it impossible that she > psyched, and I suppose she might have mis-sorted her hand, or had a > bidding box accident, but this observation might be greeted with a > scathing comment (by my wife) in the post-mortem, since she is not given > to those kinds of accidents either. > > So what am I supposed to do now? I think Herman's position is creating > a catch-22 situation here, and it'll be especially bad if I happen to > guess right! If I lose, I lose, but if I win I lose! This is bridge? > What I was saying was that while I don't believe "does not exist" to be a complete and truthful explanation, I would not hold this against someone. Although "freely offering all interesting information" should be the norm, I would expect an opponent to press on if he really wants to know, and not rule misinformation if opponent does not press on. If opponent presses on, and the player does not offer anything more, I may be inclined to rule against. The player may convince me he really does not have anything more to say. You, for example, may be able to convince me with the above arguments. I suspect the German pair in Lille was not successful in convincing the AC there was nothing more to say. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 23:09:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:07 +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 XAA14768 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:01 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-149.uunet.be [194.7.13.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08059 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:13:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364EA315.F8D81717@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:47:01 +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: Lille Appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > and then - was it Herman? - who said > > > It is impossible to have absolutely nothing to tell about a bidding > > sequence, even if it "does not exist" or "never came up before". > > It was. > ++++ ahem! what we should be discussing is disclosure of > agreements. If there is no agreement, neither explicit > nor from prior partnership experience, there is no > disclosure statement to be made. The player should > not then be saying anything and certainly should *not* > be stating her conclusions in relation to unagreed > action by partner. ~Grattan~ ++++ OK, change "impossible" to "highly unlikely". But even if the sequence that comes up has never been discussed, there must be several other bids which have been discussed. Full information requires that these "negative" inferences be brought to opponent's knowledge. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 23:09:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:28 +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 XAA14776 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:21 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-149.uunet.be [194.7.13.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08082 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:13:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <364EA4D6.F25062C5@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:54:30 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <364EA69E.7E21@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: > > We have now a new concept: stupid call. > If you pass 1C forcing everybody will say than you are stupid. > So we can apply L25B behind screens. > If a player is ready to pay -3imps on a board then it must be > "a stupid call". > It is Ton Koijman concept and it must be almost always true. > > We may have a new problem when not using the screens. > A player substitutes his call before calling for the TD who find out > than > the first call was not "a stupid call" > I don't think this is a problem. L25A does not apply. L25B is said by the WBFLC not to apply. So the player can not change. The first call must stand. Since the second call has never existed, there are no lead penalties on that one, but of course it is UI to partner. Now of course this is in contradiction to the actual wording of L25B2b1 (partner must pass) but that is a consequence of the WBFLC at Lille deciding that L25B only applies to "stupid calls", thus in fact changing the Laws without reprinting them. Grattan ! Notebook ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 15 23:09:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:52 +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 XAA14805 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:09:44 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:12:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-103.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.103] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:12:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <364F44CD.4725@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:17:01 -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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1081$8b73cbc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Anne Jones wrote: > > The wording from Lille:- > It was the intention of this 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 a 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 > In the example given by John Probst, where the player passed because he > did not have the values to open the bidding in his system, and had to > re-evaluate his hand when he realised that his partner had opened, I > profer the opinion that he has has to rectify his judgement, and this > is what the WBFLC specifically excluded. When I am teaching laws to TD's sometimes one question comes "Why this law N#? is so difficult we can make it easier" To skip that my answer is "Don't try to make the laws alltimes easy, we will one day loose our job because nobody will need us anymore" But this time I think you contribute too much for TD's. How can we explain to the players than passing 1C forcing he is trying to rectify his jugment? The meaning of the minutes of Lille is to avoid a no bridge result. Passing 1C forcing if far from playing bridge. Amicalement, Claude Dadoun From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 02:54:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:54:26 +1100 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 CAA17822 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:54:20 +1100 Received: from pa4s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.165] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zf4ZK-0002hT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:58:31 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:59:29 -0000 Message-ID: <01be10b0$ed641400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David or >> for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. > >Feel free to, your opinions are wellcome, but I think you are wrong. > >> I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier >> League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the >> centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other >> side". >> It would appear that this did not happen. >> South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding tray. >> BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as regulation >> cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. > >It certainly is. > >> IMO this is >> nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >> would not apply. > >Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. > >L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". > >I feel that this includes both the passing of a cue-bid, and the not >noticing of partner's (or opponent's) opening. Do you mean that it would apply when your LHO passes with an 11 count because he did not see his partner's opening non-forcing bid? In the past I have got lots of bottoms and tops this way. It is Bridge. I have gained or lost myself throught silly mistakes. The art of concentration is one of the things that makes a good bridge player GOOD. I think we are still second guessing the intention of the WBFLC. Did we think that Lille was going to solve all our problems? All of a sudden I think Law 25B is going to be one of our most used Laws. Surely this was not the intention of the WBFLC! > >> North has been careless, and South has been careless. >> I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West does >> not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. >> Is this any different from (without screens) >> 1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) >> > >You mean that the inattentive passer is second behind the screen ? No.. I meant "without screens". I said so. > >I don't think it is any different, provided he makes his wish known >before the tray is passed. > >But even if the tray is passed, I think L25B can still apply, and the >rescue from the "absolutely silly contract" to the Av- is still >possible. > Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 05:10:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:10:13 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18137 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:10:05 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981115181416.GFOL2383.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:14:16 -0800 Message-ID: <364F1AA6.80590C2E@home.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:17:10 -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: Lille Appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bobby wrote: > > Until then, please bring on the other appeal that people think I got > wrong in Lille. Thank you for listening. This of course was AC 23. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 05:11:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:11:56 +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 FAA18156 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:11:51 +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 KAA04057; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:15:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811151815.KAA04057@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:12:24 -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 Grattan wrote:-- > Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> From: wayne burrows >>> To my mind there seems to have been a disturbing trend locally for >>> appeals committees to impose procedural penalties for failure to follow >>> correct procedure. >> >> We had a long thread on this not long ago. The penalties you offer as >> examples are imposed under L90A, not L90B. Those favoring such >> penalites argue that "violates correct procedure" is quite broad >> permission. Those opposed argue that L90B somehow limits the authority >> granted by L90A. >> > ++++ I just noticed Steve's remark. > Law 90B is unlimited. It places no bounds upon the award of penalties. The words "but are not limited to" present an open door. The limitations, such as they are, find their expression in Law 90A. > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Every one of the example offenses in L90B deals with offenses that are (1) peculiar to duplicate bridge, and (2) are not covered by lower-numbered laws. To suppose that "not limited to" opens the door to offenses that are not (1) or (2) does not make sense to me. I would say that the limitations of L90, such as they are, find their expression in L90B. Furthermore, L90's "in addition to enforcing the penalties in these laws" says to me that L90 is aimed solely at offenses not covered by other laws. Some history might help: The original title of L90 (unnumbered at first) was "Disciplinary Penalties" in Culbertson's *Gold Book* of 1936. It was part of the material added to the rubber bridge laws, because "The special conditions under which Duplicate Contract Bridge is played require that a special code of laws be used..." It listed seven offenses, similar to those in L90B, that were all (1) and (2). In 1963 "not limited to" was added, not to "open the door," but because some BLs argued that the list was exhaustive. The title was changed to Procedural Penalties in 1975, probably (I'll bet) because Edgar and others wanted to make clear that PPs have nothing to do with "discipline," which is the job of L91 (and then only when necessary to "maintain order and discipline"). Another change came in 1987/90, when a former ninth item in L90B, "Any improper or discourteous behavior," was deleted, thus making it clear that PPs were not appropriate for such cases. Except for that deleted item, the words of L90A and the list in L90B are essentially the same as in 1963, which makes me wonder why the extremely rare PP of the 1960s has become so popular in the 1990s. Whenever an issue like this comes up, I look to the parent game, rubber bridge, for guidance. There is no equivalent to L90 in the rubber bridge Laws, even in a formal club that adopts the recommended Club Laws and provides an Arbiter. The Arbiter has powers similar to a TD. The Club Laws outline his powers, which include score adjustments, etc., but no mention of PPs. Can you imagine an Arbiter deducting 100 points from a pair's score for an MI or UI offense, whether or not he adjusts a result? No? Then why do it in duplicate? Don't we want both games to be as alike as possible? I conclude that the use of L90 for augmenting the provisions of lower-numbered laws, or to discipline players for misbehavior of a different sort than those in L90B (e.g., L74) was never intended, except maybe by the culprit who changed the title and first sentence of L74C in 1997 (although item 8. does look like it belongs in L90B). Excerpt 7 of the Lille WBFLC minutes says that it is incorrect to suppose that when an action is stated in the laws to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden are also legitimate. That principle should apply to TDs/ACs as well as players. L40E2 says a player may refer to an opponent's CC when it is his turn to bid or play. Referring to it at other times is not expressly forbidden, but is not permitted. L16 dictates what a TD can do in regard to UI. Taking other steps is not legitimate, unless L90B8 or L91 comes into the picture. It just now strikes me that PPs are being assessed especially for infractions that might hide unproven or non-damaging "sin" (MI, UI), not for infractions in which sin is unlikely to be involved (LOOT, BOOT, revoke, insufficient bid). Unconsciously, TDs and ACs may feel that it would not be right for any hidden sin to go unpunished, so out comes a PP. It reflects something of the Puritan in their makeup. The practice is especially invidious because it cannot be uniformly applied. I doubt that 20% of cases involving known MI or misuse of UI come to the attention of a TD. Most failures to Alert or otherwise disclose, and actions following UI, clearly cause no damage and the TD isn't called. However, when he is called, and especially if the case goes to an AC, the infraction is likely to get a PP, even, nay, especially, when "no damage" is ruled. I can cite many cases from the ACBL NABCs, and I see the same tendency in the Lille appeals. It's as if the PP is actually assessed for taking up the time of the TD/AC, or as a sop to the feelings of the losing appellants, not for the infraction itself. I'll have no more to say on this subject (stop cheering!), as I must get ready for the NABC in Orlando. One preparatory task is to gather all system notes regarding partnership understandings that may not be familiar to a TD/AC. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 05:23:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:23:11 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18191 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 05:23:06 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981115182717.GHFG2383.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:27:17 -0800 Message-ID: <364F1DB4.1ED0473D@home.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:30:12 -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: Lille Appeal References: <364EA315.F8D81717@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > But even if the sequence that comes up has never been discussed, there > must be several other bids which have been discussed. Full information > requires that these "negative" inferences be brought to opponent's > knowledge. And this is *exactly* what N and S both did in this case. They had no agreement, nor previous experience, with the sequence but they played SOS redoubles in *other* sequences - thus they both told opponents that the XX was SOS. Others have used this fact instead to "prove" that NS had this sequence before! No wonder if players are discouraged from attempting "full disclosure", when it is only used against them! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 07:04:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:04:48 +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 HAA18397 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:04:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zf8TS-0005kJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:08:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:57:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >For a TD *not* to issue a PP is a much a decision under the authority >granted by L90 as for him to do so. In our example cases, and in general, >nobody has appealed that decision, which means that the AC is exceeding the >authority granted to them by L93 ("In adjudicating appeals the committee >may...") if they overrule it. They are certainly not exceeding their authority by issuing fines. The actual wording of L93B is: In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of Law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling. They have a perfect right to give a PP under L90, whether it is desirable that they should or not. > Just as the judge would be exceeding his >authority by fining the motorist for an offense with which he was not >charged by the state. The judge does not have a generalised authority as give to ACs so the cases are not similar. -- 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 Nov 16 07:04:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:04:40 +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 HAA18391 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:04:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zf8TS-0005kI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:08:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:51:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981113084653.006dc19c@pop.mindspring.com> <199811131512.CAA05301@octavia.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199811131512.CAA05301@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >Does someone have the complete text of >Mr. Wolff's Lille bulletin version available? The part on my web site is complete. -- 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 Nov 16 07:11:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:11:54 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f272.hotmail.com [207.82.251.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA18434 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:11:48 +1100 Received: (qmail 7797 invoked by uid 0); 15 Nov 1998 20:15:30 -0000 Message-ID: <19981115201530.7796.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.135.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:15:29 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.135.167] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:15:29 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a maybe strange question for this debate. I am not familiar with screen play, but from my memory of the screen regulations, NS are responsible for the movement of the bidding tray. In this case, N was lax in passing the tray so that it all could be seen, and S was lax in bidding before bringing the tray into such a position that all could be seen. Assuming I'm correct, then; For those in the anti-L25B camp, would the decision be any different if the 1C (S,A,F) bidder was East, and the pass (oh my pd made a forcing opening, can I change) was West? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 07:23:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:23:04 +1100 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 HAA18469 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:22:59 +1100 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 JAA13030 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:27:12 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116092802.0092fca0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:28:02 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Quick movement plea In-Reply-To: <364D752E.BF224004@village.uunet.be> References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Technical question -- if not interested in movements, stop reading now. For a party night in the relatively near future, one of our club divisions would like to play a 12 or 13 board session of set deals from a pool of 15 boards (each of which will be made twice - one would prefer to avoid needing 3 or more copies of any board.) As much as possible, they'd like to have the movement resemble that of an ordinary club night (one board sets, one section in the room.) So roughly the arrangement should be one section, plus possibly various relay tables, and feed in at the end of the section. If the boards need to be played out of sequential order (but preferably passed in the normal sort of way) that would be fine as the recipients off the relay tables could be issued a check list. I've had no problem working out movements for 15 or fewer tables and for even numbers bigger than 15*, the hitch is with 17, 19, 21. Help? (Actually I have a movement for 17 which works until the last round and can be patched there, but when I tried to generalise it, it didn't seem to work.) * For example with 16 tables, you basically play as if it's two sections of 8 playing a 12 board set, so you have relays between 4 and 5 (board 5), 8+9 (initially containing boards 10-12), then start board 1 again at table 9, a relay between 12 and 13 etc, with a "switch" after 10 rounds. Tables 9-16 are "ghosts" of tables 1-8 so the east-west progression through them works perfectly. Michael --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 16 07:29:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:29:35 +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 HAA18496 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:29:28 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-122.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.122]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26902342; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:35:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:30:53 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe others will not see it this way but if the Lillie CoC are in effect they clearly state that changes of mind are not permitted, only inadvertent calls and infractions. When S passed he fully intended to pass, albeit, had he had the information that his partner had opened the bidding 1C it is highly certain that he would not have passed. Nevertheless, the change of call [the desire to change] was predicated on new information which was otherwise available in a timely fashion [a] from board itself via the absence of the dealer designation had it too been obscured and [b] from the inability to see the entire tray is certainly a reason to bring the tray into full view prior to making a call. The player could have alleviated the situation himself and chose not to. It is proper to require the original [legal] call to stand. If information was created by the director call, it is UI to the offending side. A different scenario: There is no CoC forbidding a change of a 'stupid call'. In this case, the change would be rectification of a bridge error and subject to L25B2b. I think it is important for the TD to rule accurately since a known incorrect ruling may deprive the NOS of the score that they were entitled. I think it is reprehensible for a TD to jeopordize the rights of the NOS should he knowingly rule without knowing the relevant rules. When a botched ruling becomes the issue instead of what the players actually did it may become impossible to rectify it. About the only thing that happens is that the TD says, 'sorry it happened, tough luck.' As much as it may hurt the players, I think that retrieval of the relevant rules is imperative, even to the point of delaying the game. After all, the TD ought have the rules at least in his head when he comes to the table should he not have the written copy. That the entire event is subjected to discomfort is unfortunate, but that is due the failure of the TD and not the contestants. Expediency is just that, but it ought not be employed to the detriment of the NOS. My personal feelings are that rules that allow perpetrators to benefit from their own infractions are contrary to the concept of contest. In this instance, it seems harsh to forbid the change of call. But it is fair. South's pass was a legal call. All parties had the opportunity to follow the rules and not all did. To give the offenders the benefit of L25B2b which gives them -3 imps instead of say -13 imps had the hand been passed in 1C is unfair to everyone else that followed the rules. Such rulings send two messages [a] that the rules are not enforced for everyone and [b] you don't have to follow this rule. Others argue that not allowing the change of call forces upon the contestants a game that is not the game of bridge. I take great issue with that because it very much enforces that the game of bridge is being played. The game of bridge includes bidding good contracts as well as ridiculous contracts. To say that doing something ridiculous is not bridge and in order to make it bridge you get to do it over speaks to the nature of the game. Do you want a game that measures the skill of the contestants the first time around? Or do you want to measure the second time around? Or the third? Or the fourth? I think that it is folly to create a principle such as 'the contract is set by the luck of the deal'. I think that a much better principle is that the players set the contract. That players do ridiculous things happens. That many such ridiculous things do not resemble something recognizable as bridge is the way humans do behave. Is not bridge about what humans do with the cards they are dealt? If what you really want is that players play at their highest skill level, then requiring that the first legal plays to stand [subject to options by the opponents when infraction occur] will result in players quickly improving their skill level and the general quality of the game. It would also make an enjoyable contest. Your comments are welcome. Roger Pewick John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > North is Dealer. He opens 1C (strong, artificial and forcing) > East passes. North pushes the bidding tray under the screen such that > only the pass is visible. South passes. > West who is aware that he cannot see North's call (and who does know the > dealer on board 29) pulls the tray further through and the 1C bid > becomes visible. > South immediately picks up his pass and says "I wish to change my call" > > West calls the Director > > The CoC state the WBF screen regulations are in force. They are not to > hand. > > You make a ruling (almost certainly incorrect as it happens) to allow > play to continue, explaining that you will further rule when you have > determined what the regulations are, and the offending side end up > gaining one imp on the board. > > You eventually find the regulations and discover they're no significant > help. > > You are aware of the limitation to the scope of Law 25B handed down in > Lille, but decide that the passing of a forcing bid is in the same > category as passing a cue bid and according retrospectively apply Law > 25B, such that South is playing for, at best, -3 imps, based on the > actions West would have taken had you chosen to apply the Law at the > appropriate time.. > > At the end of the stanza you give this ruling (an adjustment from +1 to > -3) and explain that you will seek further clarification as it is almost > certainly a matter of Law and/or regulation. This would permit the > referee to overrule me if necessary. > > That is where I now am. Can anyone, with a degree of certainty, please > advise me on this. (DWS is away and Max - the EBU Chief TD - is > unavailable) Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 08:21:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:21:13 +1100 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 IAA18604 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:21:07 +1100 Received: from pf8s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.249] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zf9fa-00027a-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:25:19 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:26:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01be10de$97ba36a0$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: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >I have a maybe strange question for this debate. I am not familiar with >screen play, but from my memory of the screen regulations, NS are >responsible for the movement of the bidding tray. In this case, N was >lax in passing the tray so that it all could be seen, and S was lax in >bidding before bringing the tray into such a position that all could be >seen. Assuming I'm correct, then; > >For those in the anti-L25B camp, would the decision be any different if >the 1C (S,A,F) bidder was East, and the pass (oh my pd made a forcing >opening, can I change) was West? You are correct insofar that the regs make North responsible for making sure the board goes all the way under the screen, so that the bidding is only visible to the other side of the screen, and South has that responsibility on the way back. I am one of the few, in the anti-L25B camp, so I will kick off. I had considered this senario, and found it olmost impossible to recreate. South really is unlikely to bid if he cannot see what his RHO has done. However the principle is there to compare. I would say that to bid in ignorance of the bidding so far is carelessness, and as such should attract the element of luck (or lack of it ) that mistakes in this game are famed for. N/S have a responsibility for the movement of the board, and if they are routinely sloppy this is worth a warning and then a PP, but just because they transgressed, there is no need for anyone to bid blind. You will recall that in the original problem West pulled the board thro' before bidding, and it was this action that demonstrated to South that he had made an error. I am still of the opinion that the official interpretation of L25B excludes this example, as it would any claim of "I didn't see the bid made by RHO,CHO,LHO. We are somewhat blinded by Screen Regs here. Imagine the auction 1S - Dbl - 3S(pre-empt) "director, I didn't see the Dbl can I change my bid?" I'm sure we all agree that L25B is no longer for this. What is the difference? The player did not Pass 1C (S.F). He passed because he couldn't open. If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might be just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 08:33:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:33:12 +1100 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 IAA18643 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:33:05 +1100 Received: from default (vn-0-13.ac.net [205.138.47.184]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA02542 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:37:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811152137.QAA02542@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:29:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 11/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>For a TD *not* to issue a PP is a much a decision under the authority >>granted by L90 as for him to do so. In our example cases, and in general, >>nobody has appealed that decision, which means that the AC is exceeding the >>authority granted to them by L93 ("In adjudicating appeals the committee >>may...") if they overrule it. > > They are certainly not exceeding their authority by issuing fines. >The actual wording of L93B is: > In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the > committee may not overrule the Director on a point of Law or > regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The > committee may recommend to the Director that he change his > ruling. > > They have a perfect right to give a PP under L90, whether it is >desirable that they should or not. > >> Just as the judge would be exceeding his >>authority by fining the motorist for an offense with which he was not >>charged by the state. > > The judge does not have a generalised authority as give to ACs so the >cases are not similar. > >-- >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 ~ I agree with you David! I can't understand why there is so much controversy over this. This is pretty close to a 'no-brainer' in my book. Besides, if you get fined for not wearing your seatbelt after you have been stopped for doing 80 a few times, at least you might begin to wear your seatbelt. I must be missing something. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 08:33:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:33:14 +1100 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 IAA18644 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:33:07 +1100 Received: from default (vn-0-13.ac.net [205.138.47.184]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA02554 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:37:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811152137.QAA02554@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:34:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: References: <364EA69E.7E21@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A >as handed down by the WBFLC and then as handed down to me by Max Bavin, >the purpose of Law 25B is to allow players not to play in, for example, >a cue bid. He expressed the opinion that passing 1C (under the >circumstances where a player has not seen the call of 1C because of a >violation of screen procedure) is a similar situation and that it is an >appropriate use of Law 25B, and the penalty is that one plays for A- or >-3 depending on the scoring method. > >I don't dispute that the Law itself is a mess, but we are stuck with it >-- or maybe passing a Blackwood response when you meant to sign off in five because you are missing two aces. I happen to like this new Law provided it is applied correctly. If the correcting of inadvertant bids with bid boxes is any sign of how well this L25B will be applied in the ACBL, I am worried. That doesn't make it a bad law, though. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 09:18:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:18:29 +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 JAA18749 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:18:18 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA11316; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:22:26 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <364EF3D3.76A62EB2@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:31:31 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L79B Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------91FB4A53B92D5F6BE915AB32" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk üÔÏ ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÅ ÚÁËÏÄÉÒÏ×ÁÎÏ × ÆÏÒÍÁÔÅ MIME É ÓÏÓÔÏÉÔ ÉÚ ÎÅÓËÏÌØËÉÈ ÞÁÓÔÅÊ. --------------91FB4A53B92D5F6BE915AB32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------91FB4A53B92D5F6BE915AB32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="my_next.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="my_next.txt" Hi all:) Uff - I won my PC and now it again became Vitold:) (While I was at my next business-trip it named itself "Eugene" - and it took 2 days for repairing) It seems to me that I should make some explanations. Several months ago in another thread Grattan quoted E.Kaplan's position that in case of discussion about meaning of a law then the intention of the Committee prevails. Well - but the thing is that the wording of the current law (L79) is quite clear and should be understood literally. I'll try to prove it once more (last time?:) After the play is over there may be four cases: - 1. parties agreed about number of won (by each party) tricks during current round - 2. parties do not agreed about number of won (by each party) tricks during current round - 3. parties/party change their opinion about won tricks and reach new agreement; usually it happens during next rounds - 4. parties/party change their opinion about won tricks and do not reach new agreement; usually it happens during next rounds Let us compare these cases with what L79 says: - L79A insists on the necessarity of the case 1 - L79B then deals with case 4; it prompts to TDs what their authority is in this case And now we see that for resolving case 2 parties will call TD and he will make his ruling - but this ruling will based On common sense. Grattan's proposal (to remove word "subsequent" from the wording of L79B) will not resolve the problem because it turns us to case 2 (instead of case 4) and gives TD authority (to rule at his discretion) in the case 2 - it seems to me extremely wrong. And we can see that case 4 (David's cases) is out of power L79B at all. The nearest law is L79C - but there are no words about TD's discretion at such a cases..... And there is pointed error made by one scorer or one player only - additional difficulty (remark of Sergey)... I have to underline once more that special TD's authority (ruling at his discretion) is given to him only in L79B - then only in case of new disagreement. Should I prove that when the Laws used words "agreement/disagreement" they mean agreement/disagreement between parties at the table? David tried to introduce "disagreement" as difference between previous agreement and posterior one - but it seems to my too sophisticated. Bridge is simple game:) And score sheet is not a subject of the Laws... Well, I know what was intended by WBFLC - but it does not matter, since the L79 might be (and then - should be) treated literally. And What about Grattan's quote from the beginning of my post? Let WBFLC change this law - but before it we should follow the Laws. And some words about so called "TD's discretion". "The way to the Hell is paved by good wills." Herman wrote: "So it is not table numbers that David is referring to, but placings in the table. It is conceivable for a pair winning the tournament to ask their opponents, who come fourth or fifth depending, to give them an extra trick. It is not conceivable that this happens around the last place." Are you really think that there is any difference between "table number" And "placing"?:) Both terms are equivalent and irrelevant from the bridge "doing" view. TDs must judge doing only - not placing. Grattan wrote: "Where the players make an uncorroborated statement that 8 tricks were made, not seven, and this has a significant effect on the ranking of the pair that is said to have a better score, the Director has the power to look deeply and if he is not wholly convinced he has discretion to leave that score stand whilst reducing the score of the other side." Jesper wrote: "Conclusion: I'm quite happy with the current L79B. It allows me to increase the score in all the usual cases where the original score is clearly wrong and to not increase it if I should suspect that the original score was actually the correct one." And where are these best willings? In reality it became as "1-st table - no permission, 54-th table - you are welcome". Very deep look. Best wishes Vitold P.S. I'd like to underline my really deep respect to DWS for his being ready to be helpful (I needed such help and I received it from him), for his enormous activity at BLML, etc., etc. But "Jupiter, you are angry - then you are wrong":) And we are free people in free countries. While one makes his words and/or doing public - he is to be ready for being critisized. Nothing personal, David:) --------------91FB4A53B92D5F6BE915AB32-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 10:21:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:21:12 +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 KAA18879 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:21:05 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-122.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.122]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26956460; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:26:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364F6235.B50FBB05@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:22:29 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Albert CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick movement plea References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19981116092802.0092fca0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How about trying this for 17 tables: Duplicate two sets of 13 boards. Lay out the tables for a 17 table Mitchell with four relay stands: 1&2, 5&6, 9&10, 13&14. Lay out the first set of boards progressively one to a table / or relay stand 2 tables. For the second set of boards on the first relay stand 1-3, second 4-6, 7-9, 10-13 etc. The first set of boards treats a pair relay tables as a single table for movement reasons. This way the relay stand tables have a second board so there is no wait. The second set of boards stay on the relay stand until every fourth round where the played boards are moved to the next relay stand [less confusion about moving 2 identical boards each round]. You can curtail play after 12 rounds since that is a condition of contest. I am in a hurry so have not checked it out to verify that it works but it seems right. Good luck. Roger Pewick Michael Albert wrote: > > Technical question -- if not interested in movements, stop reading now. > > For a party night in the relatively near future, one of our club divisions > would like to play a 12 or 13 board session of set deals from a pool of 15 > boards (each of which will be made twice - one would prefer to avoid > needing 3 or more copies of any board.) > > As much as possible, they'd like to have the movement resemble that of an > ordinary club night (one board sets, one section in the room.) So roughly > the arrangement should be one section, plus possibly various relay tables, > and feed in at the end of the section. If the boards need to be played out > of sequential order (but preferably passed in the normal sort of way) that > would be fine as the recipients off the relay tables could be issued a > check list. > > I've had no problem working out movements for 15 or fewer tables and for > even numbers bigger than 15*, the hitch is with 17, 19, 21. Help? (Actually > I have a movement for 17 which works until the last round and can be > patched there, but when I tried to generalise it, it didn't seem to work.) > > * For example with 16 tables, you basically play as if it's two sections of > 8 playing a 12 board set, so you have relays between 4 and 5 (board 5), 8+9 > (initially containing boards 10-12), then start board 1 again at table 9, a > relay between 12 and 13 etc, with a "switch" after 10 rounds. Tables 9-16 > are "ghosts" of tables 1-8 so the east-west progression through them works > perfectly. > > Michael > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Mon Nov 16 11:09:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:09:15 +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 LAA19092 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:09:08 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfCI9-0002M7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:13:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:02:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <19981115201530.7796.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19981115201530.7796.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother writes >I have a maybe strange question for this debate. I am not familiar with >screen play, but from my memory of the screen regulations, NS are >responsible for the movement of the bidding tray. In this case, N was >lax in passing the tray so that it all could be seen, and S was lax in >bidding before bringing the tray into such a position that all could be >seen. Assuming I'm correct, then; > >For those in the anti-L25B camp, would the decision be any different if >the 1C (S,A,F) bidder was East, and the pass (oh my pd made a forcing >opening, can I change) was West? > >Michael. > IMO many of the laws which get suspended when screens are in use (eg insufficient bid) are because of the asymmetry of the screen mates. That is one pair always bids after the other pair on each side of the screen. The same applies here. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 11:09:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:09:19 +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 LAA19098 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:09:13 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfCI9-0007Eo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:13:18 +0000 Message-ID: <6cLHVlAcy2T2Ewel@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:06:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes >Maybe others will not see it this way but if the Lillie CoC are in >effect they clearly state that changes of mind are not permitted, only >inadvertent calls and infractions. When S passed he fully intended to >pass, albeit, had he had the information that his partner had opened the >bidding 1C it is highly certain that he would not have passed. >Nevertheless, the change of call [the desire to change] was predicated >on new information which was otherwise available in a timely fashion [a] >from board itself via the absence of the dealer designation had it too >been obscured and [b] from the inability to see the entire tray is >certainly a reason to bring the tray into full view prior to making a >call. The player could have alleviated the situation himself and chose >not to. It is proper to require the original [legal] call to stand. If >information was created by the director call, it is UI to the offending >side. > >A different scenario: > >There is no CoC forbidding a change of a 'stupid call'. In this case, >the change would be rectification of a bridge error and subject to >L25B2b. > > > >I think it is important for the TD to rule accurately since a known >incorrect ruling may deprive the NOS of the score that they were >entitled. I think it is reprehensible for a TD to jeopordize the rights >of the NOS should he knowingly rule without knowing the relevant >rules. When a botched ruling becomes the issue instead of what the >players actually did it may become impossible to rectify it. About the >only thing that happens is that the TD says, 'sorry it happened, tough >luck.' As much as it may hurt the players, I think that retrieval of >the relevant rules is imperative, even to the point of delaying the >game. Nope, there were published start and finish times -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 11:16:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:16:37 +1100 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 LAA19147 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:16:30 +1100 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA21339 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:20:34 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981116011615.009d08f0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:16:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199811152137.QAA02542@primus.ac.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:29 15-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >At 03:57 PM 11/13/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>For a TD *not* to issue a PP is a much a decision under the authority >>>granted by L90 as for him to do so. In our example cases, and in general, >>>nobody has appealed that decision, which means that the AC is exceeding the >>>authority granted to them by L93 ("In adjudicating appeals the committee >>>may...") if they overrule it. >> > >I agree with you David! I can't understand why there is so much controversy >over this. This is pretty close to a 'no-brainer' in my book. > >Besides, if you get fined for not wearing your seatbelt after you have been >stopped for doing 80 a few times, at least you might begin to wear your >seatbelt. > snipped a lot >I must be missing something. > >Linda > Perheaps you missed a central point. The discussion wasnt if an AC has the right to give PP. Sure, thats regulated good enough in the laws. We have the problem that AC's usually consist of players, not TD's who have good insight in playing methods and rules, but not in how you respond to legal/illegal handlings (as TD i mean) I think that if PP's should be given, it is the first reponsibility of the TD to do. AC's arent usually equipped to handle this matter as good as a TD. Thats what the question was about i think and hope (we arent totally weird here and no one has ever discussed the powers of the AC). :) The question in the first place was : is it desirable that an AC does it , and I say no, unless very exceptional circumstances lead to an extra punishment (which a PP is) BTW i reacted long time ago to this issue and stated that PP's should only be given in extreme circumstances (while lille was running, so most didnt read it i suspect) by the TD. I think only zero tolerance is worse to use your power as TD. Only as last resort i will use it. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 13:30:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:30:21 +1100 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 NAA19463 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:30:11 +1100 Received: from default (vn-0-05.ac.net [205.138.47.176]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA28786 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:33:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811160233.VAA28786@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:27:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981116011615.009d08f0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <199811152137.QAA02542@primus.ac.net> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:16 AM 11/16/98 +0100, you wrote: >Perheaps you missed a central point. >The discussion wasnt if an AC has the right to give PP. >Sure, thats regulated good enough in the laws. thanks for straightening me out - I was worried... >We have the problem that AC's usually consist of players, not TD's who have >good insight in playing methods and rules, but not in how you respond to >legal/illegal handlings (as TD i mean) hmm... most of my experience is at National tournaments and I wish appeals committees handed out more PP's. I understand there is definitely two sides to this issue. >I think that if PP's should be given, it is the first reponsibility of the >TD to do. AC's arent usually equipped to handle this matter as good as a TD. >Thats what the question was about i think and hope (we arent totally weird >here and no one has ever discussed the powers of the AC). :) >The question in the first place was : is it desirable that an AC does it , >and I say no, unless very exceptional circumstances lead to an extra >punishment (which a PP is) >BTW i reacted long time ago to this issue and stated that PP's should only >be given in extreme circumstances (while lille was running, so most didnt >read it i suspect) by the TD. I think only zero tolerance is worse to use >your power as TD. Only as last resort i will use it. >regards, >anton > Perhaps my feelings on this issue are related to my golf experience (here we go - another sports analogy :-p ) In golf there are a zillion things that cause you to get the equivalent of a PP (usually you add two shots to your score) Where golf differs from bridge is that the players are required to asses these penalties on themselves. It is no big deal - a rule is violated, you get a penalty (notice - here, like bridge, there is no accusation of intent) Failure to assess proper penalties is disqualification (because you then accepted a score less than the one you achieved). In golf, you usually don't have the luxury of a 'tournament director' (rules official) so it is of direct benefit to you to know the rules and how to proceed. The argument I always get from the bridge players is that bridge is too cerebral to be treated this way. I don't buy it. The golf rules book is about the size of the laws book - but what many don't know is there is a 500 page 'decisions on the rules of golf' that must not be violated either. At least in bridge you know what you are dealing with when something happens - for example, a hesitation, - (and if we could get them straightened out, over 50% of appeals would go away). In golf, the situation isn't as easily isolated - all the rules are active all the time. An example that comes to mind in golf is what do you do when your ball lands near a snake? The answer is not trivial. You better get it right at the time - and, it's not easy to figure out from the rules book. I would expect bridge players to be like golfers - inexperienced players aren't too good with the rules. A couple disqualifications motivate you in a hurry. However, the further you progress, the better you should become with both the rules and playing skill. In my Thursday ladies golf league, the players are 'novices' yet they all accept their obligations with the rules. It is part of the game. It is not dishonorable to be disqualified for rules violations. We tend to treat novice bridge players too much like babies and protect them from themselves when we should be teaching rules right from the beginning. I would celebrate the day my bridge partner could say "I think our tempo was bad in this auction and we should probably penalize ourselves a quarter board." Believe me - that's what happens in golf. Gee - that felt good *off my soap box* (On my way to the Orlando Nationals to find out if our ACBL BOD is going to decide that only Directors will serve on appeals committees from now on.) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 13:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:27 +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 NAA19539 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:16 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfEl9-0004vh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:59:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L79B References: <364A9260.7E20@elnet.msk.ru> <364B3DCD.3FE0@wanadoo.fr> <364DC752.146@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <364DC752.146@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: >Let me come back one more time on the interpretation of L79B. >I think it is important to get an agreement on the meaning of this law. >Important because TD's are dealing very often with it. >I would like to explain why Vitold's and my interpretation is the >correct one at least in pratice. >In high level championships (in Lille for example and it is always the >same in every EBL or WBF events), >open and close room have a separate offical score form and captans bring >it to scoring room separately. >Often the two results are different. >The scoring room is instructed to post the result issue from the offical >sheet and find or wait for the teams to give a result agreement. >And the players start to agree on the number of tricks made and >sometimes the official sheet is wrong because the opposit side did not >check it. >The scoring always changed the final result (and nobody never complain). >If David's interpretion is correct on L79B then all EBL and WBF events >have an incorrect procedure and never followed the law. This is not now correct. The Law now says that no increase in score need be granted. It could be argued that this procedure did not follow the 1987 Law. >The scoring room should spleet the score written on the offical sheet. >But when the imp on a board is different it shows the disagreement and >the scoring room or TD just change the official score (even signed by >two sides) >WBF and EBL need to change the procedure or the law. >To keep peace in those championships I suggest to change the >interpretation by adding to L79b: >"a subsequent NEW agreement" (I took the sentence from Herman DE WAEL) I am happy with that. it would be nice to see such an interpretation, which, while not following the wording of the Law, may be felt to follow the spirit. I think that there is little doubt that WBF and EBL procedures have followed the spirit, and so I would not challenge them in practice. -- 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 Nov 16 13:47:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:29 +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 NAA19551 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfElD-0004vg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:51:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:25:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <19981115201530.7796.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19981115201530.7796.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >I have a maybe strange question for this debate. I am not familiar with >screen play, but from my memory of the screen regulations, NS are >responsible for the movement of the bidding tray. In this case, N was >lax in passing the tray so that it all could be seen, and S was lax in >bidding before bringing the tray into such a position that all could be >seen. Assuming I'm correct, then; > >For those in the anti-L25B camp, would the decision be any different if >the 1C (S,A,F) bidder was East, and the pass (oh my pd made a forcing >opening, can I change) was West? It does not affect L25B, which either is applied or not dependent on whether this qualifies as a "stupid mistake". [My view, argued elsewhere, is that it is.] The difference is in whether you apply a PP or not, which would in either case be applied to whoever is responsible for passing the tray. -- 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 Nov 16 13:47:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:30 +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 NAA19558 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:22 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfElA-0004vi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:51:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:06:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: corrrection of inadvertant designation References: <003b01be0f56$d4fce460$a5314f0c@jay-apfelbaum> In-Reply-To: <003b01be0f56$d4fce460$a5314f0c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: >Sorry, folks. Might have reversed the two hands. If declarer leads low from >the AKx towards the Qxx and calls for a "spade", it is clear their >incontrovertable intent is to play the Queen. Again, sorry for any >confusion. How do you, as a TD, know he has AKx? -- 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 Nov 16 13:47:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:26 +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 NAA19538 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfElA-0004vk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:23:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1081$8b73cbc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be1081$8b73cbc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I am sure we are not going to vote on this! >The contributors to this list discuss at length the their interpretation >of the Laws. The WBFLC made a decision on how Law 25B was to be >interpreted. So now we must discuss only, our interpretation of the >interpretation. > >The wording from Lille:- >It was the intention of this 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 a 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. To pass 1C forcing *because* you did not see it is *not* exercising the player's judgement. It is a "stupid mistake". Having read the wording from Lille carefully I believe that L25B applied to this situation in consequence. ----------------------------- Anne Jones wrote: >Do you mean that it would apply when your LHO passes with an 11 count >because he did not see his partner's opening non-forcing bid? >In the past I have got lots of bottoms and tops this way. It is Bridge. >I have gained or lost myself throught silly mistakes. The art of >concentration is one of the things that makes a good bridge player GOOD. >I think we are still second guessing the intention of the WBFLC. Did we >think that Lille was going to solve all our problems? >All of a sudden I think Law 25B is going to be one of our most used >Laws. Surely this was not the intention of the WBFLC! Whatever the intention of the WBFLC, we are bound by what they wrote. So in the case you cite *they* have decreed that it is a L25B case. -- 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 Nov 16 13:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:27 +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 NAA19541 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:47:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfElA-0004vj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:51:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:09:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 45C4b References: <36449BE7.7067@wanadoo.fr> <364D1709.44AA@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <364D1709.44AA@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: >-Correction of inadvertent designation- >"A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation >if he does so without pause for thought." >What if the player only "attempts to do so". >example : the declarer said "small spade no sorry !" (he meant heart) >When it happen I allow the player to change (if it is inadvertent). >But it is strange than this law is not written the same way than L25A >(only if he does so, "or attempts to do so", without pause for thought.) >Is it just forgotten or the lawmaker(s) wanted to make a difference ? I would allow the change. I cannot see why it should be different. I think some of the differences between similar positions [see the differences in MI Laws in bidding and play] are because of historical reasons: the Laws have evolved gradually rather than being written all at once. -- 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 Nov 16 14:34:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:34:41 +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 OAA19724 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:34:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfFV0-00076l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:38:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:24:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be10de$97ba36a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be10de$97ba36a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South >could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might be >just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). Yes, I think the wording from Lille makes it clear that this is a L25B case. It is a "stupid mistake", not a change in bidding judgement. -- 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 Nov 16 14:34:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:34:35 +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 OAA19716 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:34:29 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfFUr-00076n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:38:38 +0000 Message-ID: <8HqWwUCTj5T2EwO5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:15:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811152137.QAA02542@primus.ac.net> <3.0.5.32.19981116011615.009d08f0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981116011615.009d08f0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >Perheaps you missed a central point. >The discussion wasnt if an AC has the right to give PP. >Sure, thats regulated good enough in the laws. >We have the problem that AC's usually consist of players, not TD's who have >good insight in playing methods and rules, but not in how you respond to >legal/illegal handlings (as TD i mean) >I think that if PP's should be given, it is the first reponsibility of the >TD to do. AC's arent usually equipped to handle this matter as good as a TD. >Thats what the question was about i think and hope (we arent totally weird >here and no one has ever discussed the powers of the AC). :) Eric said that an AC exceeded its powers by giving a PP. While this is not the central point of the thread I do think it is important that we know whether it is legal for them to do so - it is - as well as whether it is desirable. We certainly have discussed the powers of an AC here, and I am sure will do so again! -- 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 Nov 16 14:46:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:46:22 +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 OAA19771 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:46:15 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-148.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.148]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA27253194 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:52:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364FA05D.53B06C7B@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:47:41 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <6cLHVlAcy2T2Ewel@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It sounds like it is far better for the TD to make a ruling that he knows is likely to be bad [because he does not have the rule in front of him] than to get it right at the expense of possibly delaying the game. Roger Pewick John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com>, axeman > writes > >I think it is important for the TD to rule accurately since a known > >incorrect ruling may deprive the NOS of the score that they were > >entitled. I think it is reprehensible for a TD to jeopordize the rights > >of the NOS should he knowingly rule without knowing the relevant > >rules. When a botched ruling becomes the issue instead of what the > >players actually did it may become impossible to rectify it. About the > >only thing that happens is that the TD says, 'sorry it happened, tough > >luck.' As much as it may hurt the players, I think that retrieval of > >the relevant rules is imperative, even to the point of delaying the > >game. > > Nope, there were published start and finish times > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 15:27:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA19869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:27:42 +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 PAA19863 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:27:34 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-148.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.148]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA27478411; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:33:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364FAA07.3610A547@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:28:55 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Albert , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick movement plea References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19981116092802.0092fca0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <364F6235.B50FBB05@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is an addendum for the movement that covers scoring. The use of two sets of boards requires that the results of the two sets must be combined prior to scoring. When the movement is curtailed- that is, after 12 rounds, some boards will be played 15 times [those at the starting positions immediately before the four relay tables] and others 16 times. For seeding purposes, it is best to start the lowest seeds at the starting tables of the hands that played only 15 times. In order to weight the results properly, the four boards played only 15 times must be factored 15/14. Of course, playing the full 13 round movement does not call for factoring and seeding can be done normally. Starting the top seeds two tables ahead of the boards played only 15 times will minimize the number of comparisons between the top seeds and the pairs that play the four factored boards of a curtailed movement. Roger Pewick axeman wrote: > > How about trying this for 17 tables: > > Duplicate two sets of 13 boards. > > Lay out the tables for a 17 table Mitchell with four relay stands: 1&2, > 5&6, 9&10, 13&14. > > Lay out the first set of boards progressively one to a table / or relay > stand 2 tables. For the second set of boards on the first relay stand > 1-3, second 4-6, 7-9, 10-13 etc. > > The first set of boards treats a pair relay tables as a single table for > movement reasons. > > This way the relay stand tables have a second board so there is no > wait. The second set of boards stay on the relay stand until every > fourth round where the played boards are moved to the next relay stand > [less confusion about moving 2 identical boards each round]. > > You can curtail play after 12 rounds since that is a condition of > contest. > > I am in a hurry so have not checked it out to verify that it works but > it seems right. Good luck. > > Roger Pewick > > Michael Albert wrote: > > > > Technical question -- if not interested in movements, stop reading now. > > > > For a party night in the relatively near future, one of our club divisions > > would like to play a 12 or 13 board session of set deals from a pool of 15 > > boards (each of which will be made twice - one would prefer to avoid > > needing 3 or more copies of any board.) > > > > As much as possible, they'd like to have the movement resemble that of an > > ordinary club night (one board sets, one section in the room.) So roughly > > the arrangement should be one section, plus possibly various relay tables, > > and feed in at the end of the section. If the boards need to be played out > > of sequential order (but preferably passed in the normal sort of way) that > > would be fine as the recipients off the relay tables could be issued a > > check list. > > > > I've had no problem working out movements for 15 or fewer tables and for > > even numbers bigger than 15*, the hitch is with 17, 19, 21. Help? (Actually > > I have a movement for 17 which works until the last round and can be > > patched there, but when I tried to generalise it, it didn't seem to work.) > > > > * For example with 16 tables, you basically play as if it's two sections of > > 8 playing a 12 board set, so you have relays between 4 and 5 (board 5), 8+9 > > (initially containing boards 10-12), then start board 1 again at table 9, a > > relay between 12 and 13 etc, with a "switch" after 10 rounds. Tables 9-16 > > are "ghosts" of tables 1-8 so the east-west progression through them works > > perfectly. > > > > Michael > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 Mon Nov 16 19:44:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:44:13 +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 TAA20183 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:44:06 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-23.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.71]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA13735; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:48:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364FE5AB.831C3C79@idt.net> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:43:23 -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: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be10de$97ba36a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm afraid I got left at the post on this thread. As I understand it, there is a ruling/law that allows you to change your call/play if it is a "stupid mistake." Is this true? Can someone present me with the wording of that ruling/law? Has someone saved the entire thread, and can send it to me? I hope this isn't an imposition on everyone else's bandwidth, but I seem to be coming in late on this one, and am having trouble believing what I am hearing(reading). I recall a quote from Edgar Kaplan in which he defined an error as any bid or play he would not, in the same circumstances, make. I have desperately, diligently been racking my brain trying to remember my last really intelligent mistake, and am coming up dry. On the face of it, this seems like a BL's bonanza. Can someone help? Irv David Stevenson wrote: > > Anne Jones wrote: > > >If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South > >could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might be > >just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). > > Yes, I think the wording from Lille makes it clear that this is a L25B > case. It is a "stupid mistake", not a change in bidding judgement. > > -- > 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 Nov 16 21:24:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:24:51 +1100 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 VAA20397 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:24:45 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199811161024.VAA20397@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:28:36 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA173312113; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:28:33 +0100 Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:28:33 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 13, 1998 03:51:59 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 Davie Stevenson wrote: >>Does someone have the complete text of >>Mr. Wolff's Lille bulletin version available? > > The part on my web site is complete. Does not look very similar to his argumentation now, or does it? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 16 22:16:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:16:30 +1100 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 WAA20577 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:16:22 +1100 Received: from pacs06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.173] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zfMhr-0004J1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:20:31 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:21:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1153$3fa83aa0$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: Monday, November 16, 1998 4:18 AM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >Anne Jones wrote: > >>If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South >>could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might be >>just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). > > Yes, I think the wording from Lille makes it clear that this is a L25B >case. It is a "stupid mistake", not a change in bidding judgement. > I am of course prepared to accept your interpretation, because you are CTD in Wales, but I find it difficult to understand. Are you saying that when asked, "Can I change my bid under L25B because I didn't see (or hear)A or B or C or D", your answer will always be YES? What about, "Can I change my bid under L25B because I didn't see that I had an extra Ace in my hand?" Players who wish to change their bid will always claim it is because they made a mistake. Can you give me a few examples where your answer would be NO. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 00:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:56 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-22.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23150 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:49 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfOvh-0005or-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:42:58 +0000 Message-ID: <6YDHUHBjqCU2EwmZ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:37:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199811160233.VAA28786@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199811160233.VAA28786@primus.ac.net>, Linda Weinstein writes snip > > >An example that comes to mind in golf is what do you do when your ball >lands near a snake? The answer is not trivial. You better get it right at >the time - and, it's not easy to figure out from the rules book. > I appear to have a selection of suitable weapons to beat the bejasus out of the snake (subject to interference from the PC quarter and the local Snake Defence League) - not that I play golf, but there are plenty of snakes that play bridge so the golfers are far better equipped. -- 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 Nov 17 00:38:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:55 +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 AAA23148 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:47 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfOve-00068l-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:24:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <364FA05D.53B06C7B@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <364FA05D.53B06C7B@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes >It sounds like it is far better for the TD to make a ruling that he >knows is likely to be bad [because he does not have the rule in front of >him] than to get it right at the expense of possibly delaying the game. > >Roger Pewick > > The problem I faced at the table was not whether to apply Law 25B (which I had in mind) but whether the screen regulations permitted me to. And since those were not to hand and the players were under time pressure I made a ruling to permit play to continue. In these situations I always explain to the players that this is a ruling solely for this purpose, and explain I always select a ruling that will enable a "bridge result" to be obtained. I also explained that I may well adjust the result but at least we have a start point. I know that the players in question will accept that this is a reasonable approach. The point being that if I don't have a "bridge result" then it will be considerably more difficult to restore any form of equity because I've got nowhere to start from. The NOs are very seldom damaged in this scenario. They are much more likely to be damaged if I make a ruling that produces a "non-bridge result" and I am still proven wrong. >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> In article <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com>, axeman >> writes > >> >I think it is important for the TD to rule accurately since a known >> >incorrect ruling may deprive the NOS of the score that they were >> >entitled. I think it is reprehensible for a TD to jeopordize the rights >> >of the NOS should he knowingly rule without knowing the relevant >> >rules. When a botched ruling becomes the issue instead of what the >> >players actually did it may become impossible to rectify it. About the >> >only thing that happens is that the TD says, 'sorry it happened, tough >> >luck.' As much as it may hurt the players, I think that retrieval of >> >the relevant rules is imperative, even to the point of delaying the >> >game. >> >> Nope, there were published start and finish times >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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 Nov 17 00:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:56 +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 AAA23149 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:38:47 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zfOvg-00068o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:42:57 +0000 Message-ID: <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:32:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote: > >>If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South >>could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might be >>just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). > > Yes, I think the wording from Lille makes it clear that this is a L25B >case. It is a "stupid mistake", not a change in bidding judgement. > Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at the Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so we got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then Law 25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may not have invited game we felt it probably didn't. I'd feel more comfortable if Grattan would make an observation on this, and in particular when screens are in use. FWIW I had an insufficient bid pushed through the screens too, but that was easy to resolve by comparison with the one I posted. -- 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 Nov 17 00:46:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:46:21 +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 AAA23201 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:46:15 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:48:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp20-195.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.195] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:48:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3650ACF7.1262@wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:53:43 -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: legal play L71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk During the translation of french version we did not find any case where the legal play of L71A could exist. The preliminaries of L71 make it unuseful. So the decision was to cancel it from the french translation. L71 is now simple and easy (too much?) to unterstand for french TD's. Here is the french version. [start] A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession, when: -a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, -declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, -a defender has conceded fulfillment of a contract his side had already defeated, -a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. [end] Thank you for your comments, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 00:52:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:52:15 +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 AAA23219 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:52:08 +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 JAA19754 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:11:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116085746.0071991c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:57:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <364D53D1.B342931B@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:56 AM 11/14/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> But it doesn't matter what N-S did. No matter what they did, it would >> *always* be the case that what they "did was exactly what they would have >> done if they did in fact have the agreement" to do it. David seems to be >> saying that any action by a player should be treated as though it was taken >> in accord with some partnership agreement, that telling opponents "we have >> no agreement about that" is itself a presumptive offense. > >Yes it is. > >It is impossible to have absolutely nothing to tell about a bidding >sequence, even if it "does not exist" or "never came up before". > >So these answers in themselves do constitute misinformation. David's original statement, however, seems to be much stronger than that. If the test is to be "what they would have done if they did in fact have the agreement", then it effectively becomes an infraction to deny having an agreement, regardless of whatever other helpful information (agreements in possibly analogous situations, inferences, experience, etc.) might be offered. Perhaps I should have written "presumptively self-serving" rather than "a presumptive offense". David seems to be saying that when a possible offender claims to have no agreement, that claim is to be ignored. 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 Nov 17 01:30:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:30:15 +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 BAA23363 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:30:07 +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 JAA21322 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:49:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:35:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <364D752E.BF224004@village.uunet.be> References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:18 PM 11/14/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: > >> IMO this is >> nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >> would not apply. > >Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. > >L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". Which brings us back to a point of discussion that goes much deeper than just this case. The conditions under which L25B applies are stated explicitly: "Until LHO calls... when Section A does not apply... If the substitute call is not accepted... if the first call was legal". There is nothing in the wording of the law that suggests any distinction whatsoever between a "change of mind" and a "stupid mistake". Now we who are fortunate or clever enough to subscribe to BLML know for certain that the intent of the WBFLC was to make such a distinction, and that the WBFLC believes that its interpretation should take precedence over the actual wording that they chose when writing the laws as published. But if we accept this, doesn't it mean that those of us who are privileged to belong to BLML, and thus are privy to "inside information" regarding the actual intent of the WBFLC, will be making rulings that are very different from those that would be made by TDs and AC members who are not so privileged? I do not believe that there is anyone not privy to our discussion on BLML who would read L25 and conclude that L25B2(b)(2) applies only to "stupid mistakes" as opposed to "changes of mind" (whatever that distinction might mean). How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? 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 Nov 17 02:09:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:09:48 +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 CAA23683 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:09:41 +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 KAA23507 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:29:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981116101521.006b49dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:15:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> <199811091755.LAA28183@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981113084637.00714e24@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 11/13/98 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>For a TD *not* to issue a PP is a much a decision under the authority >>granted by L90 as for him to do so. In our example cases, and in general, >>nobody has appealed that decision, which means that the AC is exceeding the >>authority granted to them by L93 ("In adjudicating appeals the committee >>may...") if they overrule it. > > They are certainly not exceeding their authority by issuing fines. >The actual wording of L93B is: > In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the > committee may not overrule the Director on a point of Law or > regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The > committee may recommend to the Director that he change his > ruling. > > They have a perfect right to give a PP under L90, whether it is >desirable that they should or not. There is no doubt that an AC has the right to give (or cancel) a PP when the matter is brought to them on appeal. My point concerned whether they have the right to do so when the matter has not been so brought; whether they have, in effect, the right to expand the scope of their inquiry to cover matters that were not germane to the ruling being appealed, even though they may have arisen out of the same facts. I don't think it matters whether the ruling in question was to give (or not give) a PP, an AssAS or an ArtAs; the question is purely one of jurisdiction. On reflection, though, perhaps they do. This may have been opened up in the 1997 laws. As David points out, L93B says "the committee may exercise all powers assigned... to the Director". And one of those powers, new in 1997 (L83), is to "refer... matter[s] to an appropriate committee". That seems to suggest that ACs may now, acting alone, take jurisdiction over matters that have not been appealed to them by either a contestant or a TD. Was this intended by the WBFLC? Is this how we should read the law now? Specifically, does "in adjudicating appeals" mean "in the course of adjudicating matters which were appealed to them" or simply "in the course of carrying out their duties as an appeals committee"? 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 Nov 17 04:30:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:30:41 +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 EAA24163 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:30:33 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA12505 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:34:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012254; Mon Nov 16 11:32:26 1998 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE115D.05577140@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:31:23 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE115D.05577140@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:26:19 -0500 Encoding: 112 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No offence taken, Eric, though I do feel the analogy is imperfect. In fact, its very imperfection serves to make part of your point. Because rudeness at the bridge table is just a breach of etiquette at a game of cards and does NOT threaten life limb and property, considerable common sense can be used in deciding whether to assess a penalty for behaviour. If partner plays the spots off the cards to make a redoubled contract with an overtrick in what had been a close contest, a big grin, a slap on the back and the words "Great job partner" may technically be gloating...but I'd question the sanity of a TD who would penalise. There is however indisputable scientific evidence that a blood alcohol level of non-zero impairs both judgement and reflexes to some degree. Driving while impaired, because of the potential hazard, is truly a ZT situation. That some misguided souls believe that they alone of all mankind are exempt from the laws of nature does not change this...it only shows the sort of denial that could be symptomatic of an addiction. I have had to report too many cases of people who believed they could drive after "just a few drinks" right up to the minute of the collision. The lucky ones keep their wheelchairs nicely polished. Others have the caretaker keep the grass mown near their stone. (Has Maryland really gone to .05? We've had such quarrels in PA about going to .08 from .10!) Having a blood alcohol level of .05 or .08 or .10 (or .42!) does indisputably show some level of impairment. The risk of harm is so great that driving privileges must be curtailed until the impairment will no longer prevail. Violating a ZT rule does not have such a high profile level of harm. It is therefore appropriate to be less strigent in rigid enforcement. Sometimes a sincere apology for a slipped-out epithet is a far better solution than an imposed penalty. And some of the ZT rules (appropriate dress...what's WRONG with jeans?...oh that isn't what you meant? was it short skirts...oh no one was complaining...gee what did you want???) are rather unclear and perhaps needlessly onerous if taken too literally. In other words, ZT offenses are NOT life and death matters...we can and should grant leeway to those who enforce such rules, while making it quite plain that consummate rudeness and offensive behaviour will NOT be condoned or allowed to pass unnoticed. Driving while impaired is quire another kettle of fish. The stakes are too high. We cannot allow this...ever, by anyone. Enforcement should be limited only by what is humanly possible. Penalty as deterrent is also more important. I would agree the cop should stop anyone who he suspects cannot safely operate a vehicle. He also should prosecute everyone he finds driving while impaired...NO exceptions. This may be the first time I've disagreed with you (even in part) in a year. Enjoy your comments and hope to run into you when I'm able to get out to more tournaments. Craig ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 9:34 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties At 04:52 PM 11/9/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >The occasionally rude bridge player is not threatening the lives of >everyone he comes near. The alcohol impaired driver is. We do not need Zero >tolerance for peccadilloes in bridge...enforcing the laws with common sense >would suffice. The drunk driver is another kettle of fish. At a minimum he >must be stopped from any further driving in his impaired condition, and >strongly deterred from continuing such potential suicidal or homicidal >conduct. There are others measures than imprisonment available...a fine and >a rehab program are probably superior in many cases, with a license >suspension or revocation available for any repetition. But this is an >example of a true Zero Tolerance situation, mandated by the consequences of >failure to aggressively enforce the law. If you have ever seen the mangled >wreckage, both human and automotive that drunk driving (and reckless >driving even when not impaired) can produce, perhaps a visit to the local >hospital emergency room and a good size automotive body shop might be a >sobering experience. No offence intended...but you have stepped on a corn >with your choice of example, and should I let it pass I would feel >responsible if any on list should suffer misadventure by letting driving >while impaired appear to be condoned. Sorry if my choice of analogy offended Craig (or anyone else). My personal opinion is that alcohol-impaired driving has been artificially elevated to a hot-button issue by the widespread availability of breathalyzers, just as, previously, speeding was the hot-button issue when radar guns became cheap and easy for the police to get. I believe that anyone who drives *as though* they were alcohol-impaired should be taken off the road; it should have nothing to do with what's in their blood. My point was simply that a b-a level of 0.05 does not necessarily make someone an impaired or irresponsible driver (although someone else with the same b-a level might be), any more than a violation of the ACBL's ZT policy necessarily makes someone an obnoxious person who will drive others away from organized bridge. A traffic cop's job is to stop people from driving irresponsibly or dangerously, just as a TD's job is to stop people from being unacceptably obnoxious at the table. Neither function is served by substituting arbitrary, albeit easy to apply, rules for intelligent judgment. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 04:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:32:28 +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 EAA24181 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:32:22 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA04495 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA03747 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:36:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:36:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811161736.MAA03747@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > As David points out, L93B says "the committee may exercise > all powers assigned... to the Director". Aren't L81C6 and 81C7 sufficient to let the AC assign a PP whenever it finds facts that call for one? I don't think we need anything new in the 1997 Laws. The analogy with a judge acting under English common law is inappropriate. A much closer analogy might be a judge acting under law derived from the Napoleonic code. (Or at least I believe so; perhaps someone more familiar with the latter could comment.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 04:37:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:37:27 +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 EAA24201 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:37:21 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-52.uunet.be [194.7.13.52]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26751 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:41:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365015D2.1A8C12EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:08:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1153$3fa83aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Are you saying that when asked, "Can I change my bid under L25B because > I didn't see (or hear)A or B or C or D", your answer will always be YES? > What about, "Can I change my bid under L25B because I didn't see that I > had an extra Ace in my hand?" > > Players who wish to change their bid will always claim it is because > they made a mistake. > Can you give me a few examples where your answer would be NO. > I would indeed almost always accept the "silly mistake". The reason behind the extra interpretation from Lille is that some players might be interpreting L25B to mean that they can change their minds. We must continue to tell them that they cannot. But if they do, we should accept they treat their double bidding as a correction of a "stupid mistake". If we tell the players that they can only change if they have made a "silly mistake", and not if they change their minds, then we will never have to decide if something is either. So yes, I would consider a player who suddenly shouts out, hey, there's another ace here, that they can change their call. After all, playing for at most 40% is not really interesting, now is it? Better hope for a subsequent defensive error somewhere. Last week, someone splintered 4Cl against me. So I led diamonds, which he ruffed. Turns out he had taken the wrong bidding card and noticed too late. In stead of asking to change (which I might even have allowed under L25A), he simply continued the bidding and scored a top in 4S+2! If we inform the players correctly, I don't believe we will ever have to decide a case like this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 05:15:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:15:54 +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 FAA24271 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:15:45 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA16567; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:19:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016530; Mon Nov 16 12:19:15 1998 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1163.94BE8160@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:18:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1163.94BE8160@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:16:24 -0500 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe this is why Grattan indicated that he was communicating the material from Lille to the appropriate National and Zonal organisations first, before sharing it with BLML. In other words, it was first disseminated through channels, then disseminated here as well for those of us who have expressed interest. Is this not as it should be? Craig ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Now we who are fortunate or clever enough to subscribe to BLML know for certain that the intent of the WBFLC was to make such a distinction, and that the WBFLC believes that its interpretation should take precedence over the actual wording that they chose when writing the laws as published. But if we accept this, doesn't it mean that those of us who are privileged to belong to BLML, and thus are privy to "inside information" regarding the actual intent of the WBFLC, will be making rulings that are very different from those that would be made by TDs and AC members who are not so privileged? I do not believe that there is anyone not privy to our discussion on BLML who would read L25 and conclude that L25B2(b)(2) applies only to "stupid mistakes" as opposed to "changes of mind" (whatever that distinction might mean). How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 05:31:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:31:14 +1100 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 FAA24333 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 05:31:08 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13539 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:29:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811161829.MAA13539@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: L25b [Was: Screen problem...] To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:29:08 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We aren't talking about the screen problem anymore, so I changed the heading--I hope no-one minds. Eric Landau wrote: > Now we who are fortunate or clever enough to subscribe to BLML know for > certain that the intent of the WBFLC was to make such a distinction, and > that the WBFLC believes that its interpretation should take precedence over > the actual wording that they chose when writing the laws as published. > > But if we accept this, doesn't it mean that those of us who are privileged > to belong to BLML, and thus are privy to "inside information" regarding the > actual intent of the WBFLC, will be making rulings that are very different > from those that would be made by TDs and AC members who are not so > privileged? I do not believe that there is anyone not privy to our > discussion on BLML who would read L25 and conclude that L25B2(b)(2) applies > only to "stupid mistakes" as opposed to "changes of mind" (whatever that > distinction might mean). I agree with you that there will be some cases where someone who reads this List will make decisions different from those made by a non-subscr*ber [even a competent and conscientious one]. > How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify > rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the > WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when > they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? 1) I am not as worried about this as you are. If some judges, for example, know something about how the laws are supposed to be understood that other judges do not, their decisions will be different. But they will be different because they are _better_, so this doesn't bother me. Or, in other words, it will only be those people who lose out because an opponent was allowed to use L25b when they shouldn't have been so allowed who will be hurt by this. I strive to make the best rulings I can in my position--if other people make worse rulings, you can't blame me for not conforming to them! :):):) The WBFLC _is_ the official source for interpretation of the laws. They have spoken, and we were there beside the burning bush when it happened. We need not apologize for being the Chosen People. :) 2) It is to be hoped that the relevant authorities will be disseminating the information from Lille. Of course, in many cases they won't [I'm not holding my breath in ACBL-land], but that's their fault. Fortunately, the ACBL also doesn't bother to tell ordinary TDs anything about Laws changes at all, so most ACBL club directors don't know that L25B exists in the first place. In this case, they're better off. :( > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 08:17:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:17:24 +1100 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 IAA24742 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:17:17 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15221 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:15:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811162115.PAA15221@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:15:19 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau > > > In my state, the use of seatbelts is mandatory. Nevertheless, it > >is considered too invasive to allow police officers to stop cars just to > >check to see if the people in them are wearing their seatbelts. As a > >result, fines for not wearing setabelts are only imposed on people who > >have already been pulled over _for some other reason_. This means that, > >for example, if I am pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, and then > >it is discoverd I am not wearing the seatbelt, I can be fined, even if the > >officer decides later that the evidence shows I was not driving drunk. > > I do not regard this as unfair. If I don't want to pay the fine, > >the simple expedient if to wear my seatbelt. If you don't want to be hit > >with a PP, don't violate proceedure. > > Insightful analogy, and I agree with it. But it's the TD who's analogous > to the copper, and we're talking about penalties imposed by the AC. It's > fair and reasonable for a TD called to the table to find no adjustment > based on no damage but give a PP to the OS. But when the cop cites a > driver for drunk driving and doesn't cite him for not wearing his seatbelt, > it would be totally out of line for the traffic court judge to find him > innocent and then say "but I'd like to punish him somehow... Mr. Officer, > was he wearing his seat belt?" It has already been pointed out that AC's have more authority than judges. But that wasn't what I was interested in commenting on. Because this is the area where we do agree. _I_ think that PP's are perfectly fine if the AC judges they are mandated, regardless of whether the TD so ruled. This is particularly true since some TD's never even consider the possibility of issuing a PP when they are justified, and so I am happy if an AC corrects this oversight. [This would be like a case where the police didn't realize that some substance someone was caught possessing was illegal. If the court had the ability to impose the punishment for that crime, I think it should.] But what I do _not_ think is justified is the kind of abuse you suggest here. I do not condone the idea "if any pair commits any infraction they must be punished, so if there is no adjustment I'll arbitrarily impose a PP fine." PPf's should be for those case which are particularly flagrant, or repeated, or apparently pre-meditated, or something like that. Not every case of MI, etc., deserves such an action. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 08:50:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:50:37 +1100 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 IAA24849 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:50:30 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20924 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:48:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811162148.PAA20924@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:48:31 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In order to rule against a pair in a case like this, one of two > >things must be present: > > a) They gave an explanation that ran contrary to their partnership > >experience. [They said "It's probably long clubs" when in fact their > >evidence from past history suggested it was a psyche, or v.v.] Or, > > The problem is that TDs and ACs currently show a strong tendency > to rule MI if partner's hand does not fit the description. > For cases where psyches are an issue, I expect no pair to > have detailed system notes on their partnership > experience regarding a few past psyches. This is a legitimate problem of enforcement, but I don't know what we can do about it. It is certainly true that if you say something simple like "doesn't exist" with no elaboration, you may get ruled against for incomplete disclosure, while if you volunteer "given our past history my best estimate is that my partner has psyched" you may get ruled against if partner didn't psyche. [Etc., mutatis mutandis.] But I don't think this changes anything. As the player, I am obligated to make available to my opponents all information which _I_ possess as a result of playing this convention, this system, or with this partner, which I think _they_ might not possess. If this means I sometimes explain 'too much' and get ruled against because it turns out that partner didn't have what my partnership experience told me he probably had, that's the breaks. By the same token, it is the AC's job to determine if this partnership revealed as much as they could/should have revealed. The AC should not reason 'yes, but if this player had given a different explanation and his partner had held a different hand, and the other side had had a different bad result, many AC's would rule against him--ergo, we should not rule against him.' In either case, there is the chance that, given the human limitations of AC members, an incorrect result will be reached. It might even be true that giving the longer disclosure would cost a pair more points in AC decisions in the long run than the shorter explanation. I don't know. But I still think they _should_ give the longer one. > Thomas > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 09:04:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:04:14 +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 JAA24886 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:04:08 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA15075 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA03987 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:08:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:08:23 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811162208.RAA03987@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nobody seems to have commented on this. > From: David Stevenson > On a matter of semantics, I understand the word "fielding" to mean > judged partner's opening to be outside range... Yes. > ...using illegal methods, normally a concealed partnership understanding. This last would not generally be included in the meaning here in the US. "Fielding" is used as a synonym for "recognized," without any implication that the means are illegal. ("I _fielded_ partner's psych because my hand was....") I think the British usage is more logical, but on BLML (or any other international forum), we need to make clear which meaning is intended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 09:53:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:53:21 +1100 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 JAA24993 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:53:13 +1100 Received: from default (ptp168.ac.net [205.138.55.77]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA01894 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:57:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811162257.RAA01894@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:59:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <6YDHUHBjqCU2EwmZ@probst.demon.co.uk> References: <199811160233.VAA28786@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:37 PM 11/16/98 +0000, you wrote: >In article <199811160233.VAA28786@primus.ac.net>, Linda Weinstein > writes > >snip >> >> >>An example that comes to mind in golf is what do you do when your ball >>lands near a snake? The answer is not trivial. You better get it right at >>the time - and, it's not easy to figure out from the rules book. >> > >I appear to have a selection of suitable weapons to beat the bejasus out >of the snake (subject to interference from the PC quarter and the local >Snake Defence League) - not that I play golf, but there are plenty of >snakes that play bridge so the golfers are far better equipped. Aha! So that explains why so many bridge players have begun to take up golf rather seriously :-p need the weapons! And I just finished loading my golf clubs into my car for my trip to Florida tomorrow. I shall arrive well prepared. Maybe that means we'll have less than 20 appeals this time. Linda >-- >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 Nov 17 13:12:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:12:17 +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 NAA25377 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:12:10 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfagn-0002ji-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:16:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:09:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:18 PM 11/14/98 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>> IMO this is >>> nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >>> would not apply. >> >>Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. >> >>L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". > >Which brings us back to a point of discussion that goes much deeper than >just this case. The conditions under which L25B applies are stated >explicitly: "Until LHO calls... when Section A does not apply... If the >substitute call is not accepted... if the first call was legal". There is >nothing in the wording of the law that suggests any distinction whatsoever >between a "change of mind" and a "stupid mistake". > >Now we who are fortunate or clever enough to subscribe to BLML know for >certain that the intent of the WBFLC was to make such a distinction, and >that the WBFLC believes that its interpretation should take precedence over >the actual wording that they chose when writing the laws as published. > >But if we accept this, doesn't it mean that those of us who are privileged >to belong to BLML, and thus are privy to "inside information" regarding the >actual intent of the WBFLC, will be making rulings that are very different >from those that would be made by TDs and AC members who are not so >privileged? I do not believe that there is anyone not privy to our >discussion on BLML who would read L25 and conclude that L25B2(b)(2) applies >only to "stupid mistakes" as opposed to "changes of mind" (whatever that >distinction might mean). > >How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify >rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the >WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when >they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? > > >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 > becuse in the UK these things are handed down to the TDs. I phoned Max Bavin and he said "Well in lille ..." I stopped him by saying I read blml and that was fine, but he was about to hand down the Lille interpretation 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 Tue Nov 17 14:00:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:12 +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 OAA25550 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfbR4-0004lw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:04:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:11:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1153$3fa83aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be1153$3fa83aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >>>If the opening bid had been 1H (NF), would we be arguing that South >>>could change his Pass if he didn't see that? To play in 1H(NF) might >be >>>just as silly a contract, as to play in 1C(SF). >> Yes, I think the wording from Lille makes it clear that this is a >L25B >>case. It is a "stupid mistake", not a change in bidding judgement. >I am of course prepared to accept your interpretation, because you are >CTD in Wales, but I find it difficult to understand. >Are you saying that when asked, "Can I change my bid under L25B because >I didn't see (or hear)A or B or C or D", your answer will always be YES? >What about, "Can I change my bid under L25B because I didn't see that I >had an extra Ace in my hand?" I would not allow such a change. The basis of the WBFLC decision is to allow, under certain circumstances, players to make a change where an idiocy is going to reach a silly result, not to change their minds. Now, I grant you that finding another ace is not a change of mind, but I don't think the really silly result test is passed. If you do not see partner's bid, you may go off in a part-score in one denomination rather than make slam in another. You may be in a really stupid contract. You are unlikely to be in a really stupid contract from missing an ace. OK, you may have missed a game or slam, but you are probably making at a lower level. I consider both this question and John's to be very interesting, and it shows as was said at our last EBU L&EC meeting that determination of a stupid mistake is going to be interesting. In my view, we should allow L25B where a player has passed a cue bid: where a player has made a call because he missed seeing partner's call [unless his call is illegal]: not allow it if a player has missed a card in his hand. >Players who wish to change their bid will always claim it is because >they made a mistake. I don't expect players to lie to me, and I do not believe that many do. Even so, I am always allowed to use my judgement. -- 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 Nov 17 14:00:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:13 +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 OAA25554 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfbR7-0004lu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:42:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: legal play L71 References: <3650ACF7.1262@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3650ACF7.1262@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: >During the translation of french version we did not find any case where >the legal play of L71A could exist. >The preliminaries of L71 make it unuseful. >So the decision was to cancel it from the french translation. >L71 is now simple and easy (too much?) to unterstand for french TD's. >Here is the french version. >[start] >A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction >period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel >a concession, when: >-a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, >-declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, >-a defender has conceded fulfillment of a contract his side had >already defeated, >-a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of > the remaining cards. >[end] Excellent. Originally L71A/B had a different time limit from L71C. When it was decided to make the time limit the same, this Law could have been simplified greatly. My impression is that it was overlooked. I think your simplification a great improvement. -- 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 Nov 17 14:00:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:15 +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 OAA25560 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfbR4-0004lv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:04:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:58:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at the >Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so we >got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that >the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then Law >25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may not >have invited game we felt it probably didn't. Absolutely not. We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? -- 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 Nov 17 14:00:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:10 +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 OAA25549 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:01 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfbR4-0004lu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:04:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:56:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <364D752E.BF224004@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:18 PM 11/14/98 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>> IMO this is >>> nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC interpretation I >>> would not apply. >> >>Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. >> >>L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". > >Which brings us back to a point of discussion that goes much deeper than >just this case. The conditions under which L25B applies are stated >explicitly: "Until LHO calls... when Section A does not apply... If the >substitute call is not accepted... if the first call was legal". There is >nothing in the wording of the law that suggests any distinction whatsoever >between a "change of mind" and a "stupid mistake". > >Now we who are fortunate or clever enough to subscribe to BLML know for >certain that the intent of the WBFLC was to make such a distinction, and >that the WBFLC believes that its interpretation should take precedence over >the actual wording that they chose when writing the laws as published. > >But if we accept this, doesn't it mean that those of us who are privileged >to belong to BLML, and thus are privy to "inside information" regarding the >actual intent of the WBFLC, will be making rulings that are very different >from those that would be made by TDs and AC members who are not so >privileged? I do not believe that there is anyone not privy to our >discussion on BLML who would read L25 and conclude that L25B2(b)(2) applies >only to "stupid mistakes" as opposed to "changes of mind" (whatever that >distinction might mean). > >How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify >rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the >WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when >they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? I don't know what happens in your jurisdiction, but this interpretation has appeared in the EBU's L&EC minutes, which goes to all panel EBU TDs. A simplified version has gone into the club Newsletter which goes to all EBU clubs, and is going into the WBU Newsletter which goes to all members. There was meant to be a version in English Bridge which ....... If the ACBL wants they can use what I have written [the simplified version] in their journal, and the same applies to any other authority. What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of your National organisation to promulgate this decision: it is not BLML's job. TDs who read BLML should not have a greater knowledge of rulings from Lille than other TDs. Of course, they are not privy to our discussions, which may be helpful, but they should have knowledge of the basic WBFLC decisions. -- 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 Nov 17 22:27:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:27:21 +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 WAA26424 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:27:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfjLx-00028f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:31:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 03:12:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <199811162208.RAA03987@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811162208.RAA03987@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Nobody seems to have commented on this. > >> From: David Stevenson >> On a matter of semantics, I understand the word "fielding" to mean >> judged partner's opening to be outside range... > >Yes. > >> ...using illegal methods, normally a concealed partnership understanding. > >This last would not generally be included in the meaning here in the >US. "Fielding" is used as a synonym for "recognized," without any >implication that the means are illegal. ("I _fielded_ partner's psych >because my hand was....") > >I think the British usage is more logical, but on BLML (or any other >international forum), we need to make clear which meaning is intended. When I discussed this on RGB a couple of years ago several Americans said they agreed with my understanding. The Bridge Encyclopaedia [an American publication] agrees with my understanding. -- 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 Nov 17 22:37:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:37:03 +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 WAA26446 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:36:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfjVJ-0002Aj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:06 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:34:56 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:34:54 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > I consider both this question and John's to be very interesting, and > it shows as was said at our last EBU L&EC meeting that determination > of > a stupid mistake is going to be interesting. > > In my view, we should allow L25B where a player has passed a cue > bid: > where a player has made a call because he missed seeing partner's call > [unless his call is illegal]: not allow it if a player has missed a > card > in his hand. > > ######### This rather fine distinction between missing a bidding card > and missing a playing card seems rather arbitrary and extremely > unsatisfactory to me. What if I stupidly forget my system? Can I > then change my call? I really believe that the Lille interpretation > is completely bonkers and that the WBF Laws Commission should be > thoroughly ashamed of itself for producing such a poor law and leaving > TDs to clear up their mess. Perhaps they should do the decent thing, > ie. organise an extraordinary meeting, produce a new sensible version > of Law 25 (eg. only mechanical errors can be corrected) and issue it > straight away as an addendum to the 1997 Laws with immediate effect. > ########### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 22:37:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:37:03 +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 WAA26448 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:36:56 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfjVL-0002Aj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:07 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:37:40 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:37:39 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWSW wrote: > >Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at > the > >Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so > we > >got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that > >the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then > Law > >25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may > not > >have invited game we felt it probably didn't. > > Absolutely not. > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is > in > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > > ########## Then how else can you decide if a stupid mistake has been > made rather than a change of mind/judgement? ########### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 22:37:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:37:04 +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 WAA26449 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:36:57 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfjVO-0002Aj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:10 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:15 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:14 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > DWS wrote: > > > I consider both this question and John's to be very > interesting, and > it shows as was said at our last EBU L&EC meeting that > determination of > a stupid mistake is going to be interesting. > > In my view, we should allow L25B where a player has passed a > cue bid: > where a player has made a call because he missed seeing > partner's call > [unless his call is illegal]: not allow it if a player has > missed a card > in his hand. > > ######### Another thought occurs to me. If a player admits to > incorrectly counting up his HCPs then would DWS consider this to be a > stupid mistake? ######## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 22:47:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:47:02 +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 WAA26513 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:46:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18425 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:51:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365065B6.A57EA8B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:49:42 +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: legal play L71 References: <3650ACF7.1262@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bonjour Claude, Claude Dadoun wrote: > > During the translation of french version we did not find any case where > the legal play of L71A could exist. > The preliminaries of L71 make it unuseful. > So the decision was to cancel it from the french translation. > L71 is now simple and easy (too much?) to unterstand for french TD's. > Here is the french version. > [start] > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel > a concession, when: > -a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, > -declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, > -a defender has conceded fulfillment of a contract his side had > already defeated, > -a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of > the remaining cards. > [end] > > Thank you for your comments, > Claude Dadoun. Indeed the rest of the text was also deleted from the official English text, although I now do not find the references. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 22:47:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:47:11 +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 WAA26521 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:47:05 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18448 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:51:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365066EC.688956E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:54:52 +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: Lille Appeal References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19981116085746.0071991c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > David's original statement, however, seems to be much stronger than that. > If the test is to be "what they would have done if they did in fact have > the agreement", then it effectively becomes an infraction to deny having an > agreement, regardless of whatever other helpful information (agreements in > possibly analogous situations, inferences, experience, etc.) might be offered. > > Perhaps I should have written "presumptively self-serving" rather than "a > presumptive offense". David seems to be saying that when a possible > offender claims to have no agreement, that claim is to be ignored. > We are all saying the same thing. "we have no agreement" in itself is incorrect information. You did not agree with your partner to pass a 4333 hand of 7 points, did you? Yet answering that you did not agree to this may be correct, but immaterial, as it is AS IF you had this agreement, that the ruling will be made. Please don't attack the example, I know it's stupid and probably faulty as well, but I hope you see my point with it. David is correct in saying that whether or not you made the actual agreement, you will be judged equally, if the TD or AC determines that both of you were along the same lines. However -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 22:47:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:47:19 +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 WAA26527 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:47:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18472 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:51:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3650688E.C8672521@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:01:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be0fc3$1079a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19981116093547.006b3580@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > How can we, "the few, the proud, the BLML subscribers", ever justify > rulings that are based on the knowledge that we alone know the truth of the > WBFLC's intentions, and the entire rest of the world is simply wrong when > they base their rulings on the misguided notion that TFLB means what it says? > Quite valid point, to which I have two answers : A) let the WBFLC worry about that. If they decide to effectively change the rules without changing the letters, then that's their problem, not ours. Perhaps they believe that telling it to the happy few at BLML is enough of a channel. Don't forget they sent a copy of the minutes to all NCBO's. B) I don't think it's the directors that should be reached. I intend to act like this : when someone asks me to change their call, I ask them : "was that a silly mistake?", and if yes, I let them change under L25B. I don't expect to have them answer, "no, a change of mind" because I will have told them again and again that they cannot change if it is a change of mind. And even if they do, I don't allow the change, knowing the WBFLC interpretation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 17 23:40:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:40:58 +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 XAA26653 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:40:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-223.uunet.be [194.7.9.223]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25855 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:45:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36516A32.811AD76B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:21:06 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1153$3fa83aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I consider both this question and John's to be very interesting, and > it shows as was said at our last EBU L&EC meeting that determination of > a stupid mistake is going to be interesting. > > In my view, we should allow L25B where a player has passed a cue bid: > where a player has made a call because he missed seeing partner's call > [unless his call is illegal]: not allow it if a player has missed a card > in his hand. > I believe that I answered the missing Ace one in the other direction before, but I am prepared to follow David's guideline on this one. Let's have some more exaples and put them somewhere to be able to refer to them in future. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 00:27:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:27:54 +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 AAA29064 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:27:46 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zflEc-0002LU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:45:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWSW wrote: > > >> >Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at >> the >> >Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so >> we >> >got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that >> >the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then >> Law >> >25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may >> not >> >have invited game we felt it probably didn't. >> >> Absolutely not. >> >> We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is >> in >> them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? >> >> ########## Then how else can you decide if a stupid mistake has been >> made rather than a change of mind/judgement? ########### As with any other judgement ruling, I elicit the facts of the case [not including the contents of anyone's hand] and make a judgement. -- 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 Nov 18 00:27:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:27:55 +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 AAA29065 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:27:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zflEc-0002LV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:50:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: legal play L71 References: <3650ACF7.1262@wanadoo.fr> <365065B6.A57EA8B3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <365065B6.A57EA8B3@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Bonjour Claude, > >Claude Dadoun wrote: >> >> During the translation of french version we did not find any case where >> the legal play of L71A could exist. >> The preliminaries of L71 make it unuseful. >> So the decision was to cancel it from the french translation. >> L71 is now simple and easy (too much?) to unterstand for french TD's. >> Here is the french version. >> [start] >> A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction >> period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel >> a concession, when: >> -a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, >> -declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, >> -a defender has conceded fulfillment of a contract his side had >> already defeated, >> -a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of >> the remaining cards. >> [end] >> >> Thank you for your comments, >> Claude Dadoun. > >Indeed the rest of the text was also deleted from the official English >text, although I now do not find the references. No, there was no deletion from L71A. To be accurate there was no deletion whatever, but it was accepted by the WBFLC that the last sentence of L71C was superfluous and unhelpful. -- 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 Nov 18 00:29:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:29:05 +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 AAA29091 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:28:59 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zflFn-0001G3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:33:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:27:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at the >>Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so we >>got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that >>the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then Law >>25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may not >>have invited game we felt it probably didn't. > > Absolutely not. > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in >them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > OK. What form of question are you suggesting we use in order to establish whether L25A, L25B is to be used. Something like ... "Is the bid on the table the one you intended to make when you pulled the card from the box? [Answers Yes apply L25A] ... then have you inadvertently made a systemic error which will lead to a stupid result, such as passing a cue bid or a game force, or such as signing off when you intended to game force? If you answer Yes then the call can be changed but you are likely to be playing at best for 40%/-3, and if you answer No there is nothing I can do" [Answers Yes apply L25B] [Answers No - go and annoy someone else] -- 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 Nov 18 03:31:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:31:56 +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 DAA29965 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:31:39 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-60.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.60]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28476551 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:37:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3651A52F.325C87DE@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:32:47 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A TD has many responsibilities. And I can understand all too well how any TD feels the need to satisfy all their responsibilities. That it is important to conclude a contest in the stated duration. And I would be hard pressed to find an experienced TD that has never been caught flat footed. However, for a TD to willingly act such that it could be the cause of a situation that may ruin the contest for participants is something that escapes me. I recognize that I do not have enough facts to rule accurately in the situation presented, but that is not what I am addressing. You were asking for opinions about how you handled the situation. Your method was to shoot from the hip. This can work out or not. For instance: An irregularity has occurred and the TD comes to the table. He finds out what happened. Being a straightforward person he states that he has shirked his duty because this situation is covered by special rules that he does not have with him and does not remember sufficiently to be certain of the ruling. However, to minimize any delay he is going to rule without the benefit of the rules and fix anything errant later. It turns out that the ruling was errant and when 'fixed' that one or both sides received scores lower than they might have earned with a correct ruling. Imagine the position that the players are in. They must memorize everything that could have been important and not forget it until they can put it to paper. They are worried about the appeal. They divert tremendous amount of brain power trying to figure out what arguments will be needed in a ruling situation that is unfamiliar to them- instead of applying all their energies to playing bridge. There is also worry that the appeal ruling will not be accurate. These and other factors in and of them selves are enough of a distraction to negate the past performance of the parties but the future performance. Not to mention the resentment of being screwed by a TD that did know what he was doing. I do not believe that the TD should become the cause [at least knowingly] of wasting the player's time and money because an event for them has been ruined. [It is a different matter when the players ruin their own time.] There have been many instances where Tournament officials/ TDs have fallen down in their responsibilities and perhaps altered destiny. In particular, many have happened in championship play in the ACBL. For instance, I believe it was a TD that switched boards to the wrong matches causing all the players to replay a group of boards. It took hours to assemble a committee to figure out that the boards had to be replayed forthwith. This meant after midnight. One team chose to not show up and the winners of the other match were so exhausted when they finished after 4AM that even with a delayed start time of the next match they were humiliated. I do not think that it is proper for a TD to guess when it is possible to know. It is too likely that they will not get it right and be the cause of dismay to the participants. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <364FA05D.53B06C7B@freewwweb.com>, axeman > writes > >It sounds like it is far better for the TD to make a ruling that he > >knows is likely to be bad [because he does not have the rule in front of > >him] than to get it right at the expense of possibly delaying the game. > > > >Roger Pewick > > > > > The problem I faced at the table was not whether to apply Law 25B (which > I had in mind) but whether the screen regulations permitted me to. And > since those were not to hand and the players were under time pressure I > made a ruling to permit play to continue. In these situations I always > explain to the players that this is a ruling solely for this purpose, > and explain I always select a ruling that will enable a "bridge result" > to be obtained. I also explained that I may well adjust the result but > at least we have a start point. I know that the players in question will > accept that this is a reasonable approach. The point being that if I > don't have a "bridge result" then it will be considerably more difficult > to restore any form of equity because I've got nowhere to start from. As far as ruling where a non bridge result is obtained, presumably, if the TD has the rules in front of him, he will not get the ruling wrong. As I am beginning to see it, it is one thing when the players do not follow the rules and something different when the TD does not follow the rules. When the players do not follow the rules it is adjudicated by the TD and AC. When the TD breaks the rules, any 'bridge result' is likely to be distorted to begin with. The most important data is missing- what would have happened if the TD had gotten it right. There are too many such situations where the players could have gone wrong making an AC ruling far different than what might have happened. This is lost when the TD gets the ruling wrong. I believe that it is reprehensible to have the rules available [perhaps across the room], not look at them, and get the ruling wrong. I hope my views are palatable. Roger Pewick > The NOs are very seldom damaged in this scenario. They are much more > likely to be damaged if I make a ruling that produces a "non-bridge > result" and I am still proven wrong. > > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> > >> In article <364F39FD.C7081ED5@freewwweb.com>, axeman > >> writes > > > >> >I think it is important for the TD to rule accurately since a known > >> >incorrect ruling may deprive the NOS of the score that they were > >> >entitled. I think it is reprehensible for a TD to jeopordize the rights > >> >of the NOS should he knowingly rule without knowing the relevant > >> >rules. When a botched ruling becomes the issue instead of what the > >> >players actually did it may become impossible to rectify it. About the > >> >only thing that happens is that the TD says, 'sorry it happened, tough > >> >luck.' As much as it may hurt the players, I think that retrieval of > >> >the relevant rules is imperative, even to the point of delaying the > >> >game. > >> > >> Nope, there were published start and finish times > >> > >> -- > >> 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 Nov 18 04:22:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:22:15 +1100 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 EAA00229 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:22:08 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15739 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:20:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811171720.LAA15739@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lille Appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:20:09 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> The problem is that TDs and ACs currently show a strong tendency > >> to rule MI if partner's hand does not fit the description. > >> For cases where psyches are an issue, I expect no pair to > >> have detailed system notes on their partnership > >> experience regarding a few past psyches. > > > > This is a legitimate problem of enforcement, but I don't know what > >we can do about it. It is certainly true that if you say something simple > >like "doesn't exist" with no elaboration, you may get ruled against for > >incomplete disclosure, while if you volunteer "given our past history my > >best estimate is that my partner has psyched" you may get ruled against if > >partner didn't psyche. [Etc., mutatis mutandis.] > > Well, you did see Wolf Stahl's message on BLML, didn't you? > The point is that he did *not* know what to make > out of the 2C bid, hence the explanation 'does not exist'. > Later, he alerted XX as SOS, which is in accordance with their general > principals, and then the AC ruled against him because this > gave them the impression that the whole sequence > was not unfamiliar to him. > I was making a reply to a different point. We have several issues on the table: 1) Did he have information from partnership experience that should have told him that the 1NT bid was psychic? [If so, then his 'doesn't exist' statement is clearly not adequate explanation.] 2) Was "doesn't exist" adequate explanation even if the answer to question '1' is 'no'? 3) Should the XX have been explained as SOS? 4) If the explanation was inadequate, were EW damaged by it, and to what degree? [There are also several peripheral issues, such as to what degree the level of the EW pair matters in deciding on the adequacy of explanations, etc.] I have made no claims whatsoever about '1'. The information we have been given on this forum is explicitly contradictory. I do not have enough evidence to decide whether Mr. Stahl gave different evidence in front of the AC than he is giving now, or whether Mr. Wolff misremembers the evidence, or whether the evidence given before the committee was unclear and Mr. Wolff legitimately but incorrectly interpreted it to mean something different from what Mr. Stahl intended. I have an _opinion_ on the matter FWIW {I do not think the NS pair are lying, or that Wolff is lying, so I think either Wolff misunderstood or misremembers}, but I do not think I have enough evidence to make that opinion worth very much. I am claiming that the answer to '2' is 'no'. I do not think "doesn't exist" is ever adequate explanation. Since you brought it up, I think the answer to '3' is 'yes'. THe fact that the committee may have misinterpreted this is unfortunate. Personally, I would have been much harder on NS if this bid had _not_ been alerted this way. Finally, on issue '4', I think the answer is open. I would need to know things like "What did EW _think_ 'doesn't exist' meant?" Why didn't they ask further questions about it? What do they say they would have done had they understood that it _might_ reveal a psyche? Etc. The write-ups we have don't tell me everything I need to know to answer these questions to my satisfaction. There's also question '5': was the actual ruling correct, all things considered. The answer is obviously 'no'. _Even if_ the explanation was inadequate, _even if_ you think EW were damaged by it, I cannot dream of any argument or reasonable interpretation of Law that makes the adjusted score that was given correct. I think NS were wronged by the committee. > > But I don't think this changes anything. As the player, I am > >obligated to make available to my opponents all information which _I_ > >possess as a result of playing this convention, this system, or with this > >partner, which I think _they_ might not possess. > > This particular player in this particular situation > did not have *any* additional information at all, because > their system explicitely forbids opener to rescue himself > from 1NT XX. That's all the information he has, and > he has already provided E with that > information on the previous round. This is quite possibly correct--I can't judge, because I don't know what was said in the hearing. I was disagreeing with the idea that one should avoid longer explanations because committees tend to rule against pairs when the explanation doesn't match the hand. > Thomas > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 05:22:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:22:27 +1100 Received: from mjollnir.net.unc.edu (mjollnir.net.unc.edu [152.2.145.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00410 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:22:21 +1100 Received: (from daniel@localhost) by mjollnir.net.unc.edu (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA00677; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:25:01 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:25:01 -0500 (EST) From: daniel@unc.edu To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > This is very interesting. In the ACBL, the directors always look at the hands. They then use their "bridge judgement" to determine whether an infraction has occured. The cards held almost always figure in the ruling. Daniel Chapel Hill, NC From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 05:59:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:59:43 +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 FAA00537 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:59:37 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA15005 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA04652 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:03:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:03:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811171903.OAA04652@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > When I discussed this on RGB a couple of years ago several Americans > said they agreed with my understanding. Perhaps my understanding is only regional, but I've heard "fielding" used as a synonym for "recognizing" on both coasts. In fact, I've heard it most commonly in reference to "fielding" an _opponent's_ psych. Is this a great language, or what? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 06:13:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:13:30 +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 GAA00624 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:13:24 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16012 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA04666 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:17:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:17:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811171917.OAA04666@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lille Appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grant C. Sterling" Good summary of the issues! > I do not think "doesn't exist" is ever adequate explanation. Until this discussion, I would have thought it a fine synonym for "violates system; not supposed to occur." From now on, though, I'll try to remember to use the latter if the situation arises. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 10:31:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:31:20 +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 KAA01430 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:31:10 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA22849; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:35:20 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:44:14 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I tried to keep silence - but I can't, sorry. I guess: it would be better if I could:) 1. At first part of the post I'd like to prove that Anne was right:. She's only mistake was that she esteemated that she was in minority:) Let us see once more current WBFLS's position: " 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 wording is quite clear: it is about stupid mistakes like passing a cue bid AFTER thinking whether to bid game or slam. Is the discussed case similar? For my opinion - absolutely not. The player's Pass based on his hand and on his imagination that his partner did not bid yet. But it was CARELESS judgement, not stupid. Were there any thinking about game? Where there any thinking about non-seen part of bidding-tray? Where there any thinking (except his hand) at all? WBFLC did not allow to rectificate such doings. No one may make the WBFLC interpretation wider. Applying the WBFLC interpretation to such cases seems as getting to OS a second chance (even for Ave- price) instead of current result. And what about UI - the player has no opening bid? Isn't it too much for one board? One may esteemate the happening by recognising facts only, without seeing OS's hand. But who will be able to rule if there were miscounting, misunderstanding, misrememberring or misbidding? Player's explanation only? Then - in 90% it will be misbidding (people are not bad - people are weak). Then - the next step may be ruling without recognising facts: OS's explanations will do... Next step?:) 2. At my second part I'd like to express my strongly disagreement with WBFLC's decision on this matter. As a one who keeps a letter of the Laws - I will follow it. But I will try to restore previous interpretation because new one born new game other than bridge. Let us remind that bridge is the game of bridge actions: so in bidding as in card-play. The concept of "stupid mistakes" cannot concern on the bidding only - the next logical step will be excluding stupid mistakes from card-play. Such as text-example: AQ at the dummy, Declarer leads smal from his hand, LHO plays K, Declarer - Q. And:then - TD!! I made a really stupid mistake... Don't we remember the discussion on this theme, and our positions in this matter?:) And really - it is very stupid mistake, no less than Pass over cue-bid.. The next step - discussion on the matter of what is it "stupid mistake". It will not be interesting (as one of disputant supposed) - it will determine another game. Because an expert will prove that not seeing at first trick the compound squeeze with variable threat is so stupid mistake - and AC may agree... For another player such a stupid mistake will be miscounting (and discarding wrong card) at 12-th trick. One more absolutely stupid doing - wrong answer for RKC. And so long, and so forth - there were a lot examples in discussion, and even supporters of new line made different decisions... Who will stop this potential (and quite logical after discussed WBFLC's decision) avalanche? There have already been expressed positions that the only right decision is to restore previous interpretation: "called - played" (as the Legend taught). Every mistakes are stupid, and every mistakes are part of the game. Such a restorring makes every players equal before the Laws, it make one 2-nd type law less, it makes bridge more human and sportish... For my opinion, indeed. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 13:00:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:00:09 +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 MAA01703 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:58:53 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfwxF-00017G-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:02:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:31:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>Interestingly, there were 3 EBU Directors at the YC yesterday (me at the >>>Premier League, Harper at the U19s, and Bob King at the U25s) and so we >>>got to talking about 25B. Our consensus was that if it is clear that >>>the offender would have driven to game, facing an opening bid, then Law >>>25B MUST apply. If however the offender has a hand that may or may not >>>have invited game we felt it probably didn't. >> >> Absolutely not. >> >> We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in >>them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? >> >OK. What form of question are you suggesting we use in order to >establish whether L25A, L25B is to be used. Something like ... > >"Is the bid on the table the one you intended to make when you pulled >the card from the box? > [Answers Yes apply L25A] > > ... then have you inadvertently made a systemic error which will lead >to a stupid result, such as passing a cue bid or a game force, or such >as signing off when you intended to game force? If you answer Yes then >the call can be changed but you are likely to be playing at best for >40%/-3, and if you answer No there is nothing I can do" > [Answers Yes apply L25B] > [Answers No - go and annoy someone else] How about "What is the problem please?" I'm actually fairly serious. I am not going around suggesting L25B in general. If someone wishes to change their call I am already required to find out why without looking at their hand. You seem to suggest that we tell them what will happen and then discover the facts. I don't expect players to lie to me, but I don't go so far as to make it clear to them that lying to me might be in their best interests. I can imagine a case where I take a player away from the table to ask him his intentions - that's fine. But I *must* *not* look at his hand. TDs, even the best, are not equipped to make _instant_ _uninformed_ judgement decisions, and *must* avoid doing so. When a TD looks at a hand he then has to make a bridge decision ["Why does he want to change his call?", for example] and his reply is quite likely to give UI, and could very easily be wrong with unfortunate results. Actually, even taking the player away from the table leads to potential UI. Let us accept that L25B is not common, and we do not wish to make it so. We do not offer it. If a player wishes to substitute a call for the call he made we are required to find out why, and we just do our best using the normal methods. If it is a mechanical error without pause for thought we use L25A. If it is a substitution apparently to avoid a stupid mistake potentially leading to playing in a silly contract then we use L25B. Otherwise we do not allow a change. Of course we are going to make mistakes since the wording now leads to judgement decision-making, so we do it and let ACs sort it out if necessary. But we do *not* abandon our normal principles because the decision may be difficult to make. -- 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 Nov 18 13:40:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:40:03 +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 NAA01789 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:39:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zfxbG-00038H-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:44:11 +0000 Message-ID: <7dvvGIAwGjU2Ew36@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:32:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> In-Reply-To: <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > > > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in > > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > > > >This is very interesting. In the ACBL, the directors always look at >the hands. They then use their "bridge judgement" to determine >whether an infraction has occured. The cards held almost always >figure in the ruling. Let us be very careful here: you are saying that ACBL TDs regularly look at players hands while the hand is in progress? Amazing! It must help partner to know what is in his hand no end! -- 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 Nov 18 15:12:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:12:38 +1100 Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02005 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:12:34 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn4p38.ozemail.com.au [203.108.69.38]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11643 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:16:49 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:16:49 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199811180416.PAA11643@fep7.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: L25B, what else (used to be screen problem) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:32 AM 21/10/98 +0200, Ton Kooyman wrote: >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. > Having become totally confused about what some say is the clear meaning of the Lille minutes on the change to L25, I re-read the above commentary. I do not see that this *clearly* allows one to change a pass of a forcing bid if the bid was not seen, but on the other hand I am not quite clear about what it *does* mean. I think the EBU directors have been told how they are to interpret the new L25, but I think its time for a definitive interpretation from the WBF. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 16:12:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:12:58 +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 QAA02145 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:12:52 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-29.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.125]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA16392; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:17:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36525700.D8819051@idt.net> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:11:28 -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: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> <7dvvGIAwGjU2Ew36@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sadly, this IS true, David. The directors will take it upon themselves to decide all kinds of things based on the hands. I've seen it many times. Only since I've subscribed to this list have I understood that they shouldn't (and I've been playing bridge for a LONG time!) Irv David Stevenson wrote: > > wrote: > >David Stevenson writes: > > > > > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in > > > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > > > > > > >This is very interesting. In the ACBL, the directors always look at > >the hands. They then use their "bridge judgement" to determine > >whether an infraction has occured. The cards held almost always > >figure in the ruling. > > Let us be very careful here: you are saying that ACBL TDs regularly > look at players hands while the hand is in progress? Amazing! It must > help partner to know what is in his hand no end! > > -- > 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 Nov 18 22:58:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:58:51 +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 WAA02756 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:58:45 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:01:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-24.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.24] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:01:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <365336C3.A32@wanadoo.fr> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:06:11 -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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> <7dvvGIAwGjU2Ew36@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > > This is very interesting. In the ACBL, the directors always look at > the hands. They then use their "bridge judgement" to determine > whether an infraction has occured. The cards held almost always > figure in the ruling. > > Let us be very careful here: you are saying that ACBL TDs regularly > look at players hands while the hand is in progress? Amazing! It must > help partner to know what is in his hand no end! > I do look the player hand. I take the player away from the table to check if: L25A (inadvertent or not?) L27 (bid conventional or not?) L21b1 (call maid as result of misinformation or not?) ... I had a discussion with chiefs ACBL TD's on L27 (I think it was 7 or 8 years ago) and they told me they never look player hand because "Law protect them". I was not agree , TD can make a mistake by not looking the hand player. May be they changed their mind on it. I think it is faster and easier to take the player away with his cards and his convention card than to decide alone. You avoid discussion at the table and you make it more secure. This way was accepted by Grattan Endicott in his commentary book (Law 27) The only information you give to the players is that the offender was making a natural bid or not (could be find with the ruling). Amicalement, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 18 23:58:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:58:42 +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 XAA02898 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:58:35 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-66.uunet.be [194.7.13.66]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02441 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:02:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:42:54 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > > Hi all:) > > I tried to keep silence - but I can't, sorry. I guess: it would be better if > I could:) > Then Vitold goes on about how the not seeing of partner's pass is not a silly mistake, and so on. Vitold fails to see where this discussion started. Let's all go back a few months. Among the 1987 Laws there was a L25B. It meant that if a player had made a silly mistake, he could change his call, rather than play in a cue bid, but his partner had to pass. I know some of you are unhappy with that Law and don't want any changes, ever, but that's how the Laws are, and the WBFLC did not want to change this in the manner you would like. They were unhappy however, with the working of the Law, in that it encouraged gambling action. The offender got to change his certain bottom for a bottom-or-top, and this is clearly not good for bridge. Sometimes the opponents ended up with a bottom they could do nothing about. So the WBF decided to change the law. In stead of playing for bottom-or-top, the offender now gets the chance of playing for Av-, still better than the certain bottom he had before. But the opponents get to play normal bridge, and if they now get a bottom, at least they have played a normal bridge hand. That far, everything all right. But when the new Laws were published, someone read the new L25B and said "hey, this also means I can change my call if I change my mind", and some discussion started about something that was called "the race". If the bidder could outrun his LHO and change his bid before a double hit the table, he could avoid a bottom by going for Av- in a second try. While this example struck me as silly at the time, it did make it to Lille, and the WBF stopped a gap (where IMO there was none). The WBF decided that L25B only applied in cases of silly mistakes, and not in cases of "change of mind". I won't comment here on the legal problem they create by changing a Law without changing it, so let's go on. Now some of you start discussing what are and what are not "silly mistakes". Now some of these discussions are valid. The miscounting of ones own points, or something, do IMO mean that a change of mind has occured. But some others are frankly silly. So let's stop trying to find out if it is silly not to notice your partner's bidding and rather concentrate on the real issue. The WBFLC has made it legal to change your call, if you consider that it was such a silly mistake that you know you are playing for a bottom certainly. They have given you the option of playing for Av- instead. Now if you as player want to admit that what you did was so silly that you know it will result in a certain bottom (such as passing your partner's strong opening 1Cl) then that is exactly the situation the WBF intended L25B for in the first place. So Vitold, please forget your dislike for this Law, you are not alone and there is nothing you can do about it anyway. Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid enough to warrant playing for Av-. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 02:35:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:35:53 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05605 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:35:43 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA18212 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:39:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018133; Wed Nov 18 09:39:13 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE12DF.8A6DA100@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:12 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE12DF.8A6DA100@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:38:00 -0500 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 9:32 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > > > > We do *not* look at the players' hands, nor do we find out what is in > > them. How can you possibly make a ruling based on what they hold? > > > >This is very interesting. In the ACBL, the directors always look at >the hands. They then use their "bridge judgement" to determine >whether an infraction has occured. The cards held almost always >figure in the ruling. Let us be very careful here: you are saying that ACBL TDs regularly look at players hands while the hand is in progress? Amazing! It must help partner to know what is in his hand no end! ### Not nearly so much as it informs the playing director of what a successful line will be. This places him under an enormous, self-imposed ethical burden to ascertain what he would have done absent the director's unauthorised information or DUI. This is, unfortunately a typical situation in club games, where director's often ask another director in the room who has already played the boards to take the ruling. Many would "not know how to rule" if they did not look at the cards. I was trained to look at the hands to aid in ruling correctly, never learning there was another recommended way until reading your comments a year or two back on this group. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 04:58:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:58:34 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06088 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:58:25 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.176] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA06654 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:02:34 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36530BB7.D6353C8A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:02:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Back to H+C+D BLML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wasn't available for the last 12 days . I thought you enjoyed it enough !! Now - all of you - especially H-BLML will suffer again . I apologize a priori if I'll send any remarks too late , but I'll try to do it only in "insupportable" cases. Enjoy again and have good time Dany From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 05:48:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:48:48 +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 FAA06249 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:48:37 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id VAA14177; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:52:43 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3652B719.515F2833@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:01:32 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Thank you, Herman, for your remarks. But I dare to disagree with you in several points that are seemed to me to be important. So - I have to acknowledge that we are using different English: one - is mine and (I guess) nobody understands it, second - common English. Otherwise - what was written by Herman about? Herman De Wael wrote: > Vitold wrote: > > > > Hi all:) > > > > I tried to keep silence - but I can't, sorry. I guess: it would be better if > > I could:) > > > > Then Vitold goes on about how the not seeing of partner's pass is not a > silly mistake, and so on. > > Vitold fails to see where this discussion started. Sorry, Herman, but I was reading all the posts devoted to this thread from the verybeginning. And I was not agree with proposed ruling - even inside of calibre WBFLC's interpretation > I know some of you are unhappy with that Law and don't want any changes, > ever, but that's how the Laws are, and the WBFLC did not want to change > this in the manner you would like. > I did write that I am one "who keeps to the letter of the law", didn't I? Oryou are one who didn't read it? Sorry for my non-understandable English:)) Then Herman exposed well-known story about WBFLC's decision. Asat second part of my post I tried to explaine why this decision was wrong -so I will not repeat my arguments. > The WBF decided that L25B only applied in cases of silly mistakes, and > not in cases of "change of mind". I won't comment here on the legal > problem they create by changing a Law without changing it, so let's go > on. > Now some of you start discussing what are and what are not "silly mistakes". 1. Little remark: as my English is rather poor I'd like to keep WBFLC's decisionstrictly: there was no word "silly", there is word "stupid" in use. I do not know what conclusion may be after changing these words - but let us be with WBFLC. For simplisity. And for sure:) 2. As there were no WBFLC's definitions of the "stupid bid" (exept the written example) who can stop such a discussion?:) And what for? > Now some of these discussions are valid. The miscounting of ones own > points, or something, do IMO mean that a change of mind has occured. > > But some others are frankly silly. Let us try to use rational arguments and not use emotional esteemations of eachother. It'll be more useful - it's my personal opinion and position. I guess that a most of us has a lot of thorns under their tongue (Kipling, "The Book of Junle") but should we use them?:) > So let's stop trying to find out if it is silly not to notice your > partner's bidding and rather concentrate on the real issue. OK - then I ask you to read the thread from the beginning. The player did not passforcing opening bid. He passed because he had no opening bid himself - it was underlined by Anne at 3-rd or 4-th post at the thread. The opening bid was CARELESSLY not transmitted from one side of the screen to another. And then - it was CARELESSLY not received at destination side. There was not stupid/sillu bridge action (what was allowed to change). There was CARELESS doing by both players at this side of screen. One was lucky because it was not his partner who made forcing bid. WBFLC did not allow to chage carelessly bridge action. Why do you insist on breaking the WBFLC's decision?:) At this condition change Pass to bid WILL be change of mind. And I repeated Anne's arguments. Nobody (including Herman) made rational arguments against thiis position. Named it as "silly" is not cleverest argument, is it?:) > So Vitold, please forget your dislike for this Law, you are not alone > and there is nothing you can do about it anyway. > So Herman - let us try to follow current WBFLC interpretation:) Andlet it'll be permitted to me to make public my opinion about this interpretation:) > Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not > and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid > enough to warrant playing for Av-. > Now I am not agree - by the Laws it is TD's obligations to observe the Laws'execution. Players are obliged to follow the Laws. Then - there are TD's and AC for making decision if it is "stupid" mistake or something else. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 07:12:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:12:00 +1100 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 HAA06409 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:11:54 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.175] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zgDyR-0001eg-00; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:14:31 -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 A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or the other: Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S under the new L25B? Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some support for my version of Law 25, which runs: Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. Law 26... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 08:28:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:28:57 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06584 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:28:50 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA19084; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:32:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018996; Wed Nov 18 15:31:59 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1310.D2B90D60@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:30:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1310.D2B90D60@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'David Burn'" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:30:20 -0500 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like it! Craig ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 3:14 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or the other: Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S under the new L25B? Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some support for my version of Law 25, which runs: Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. Law 26... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 13:22:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:22:45 +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 NAA07291 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:22:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgJnz-0001xe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:26:49 +0000 Message-ID: <+61eviAbJ0U2Ewlj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:55:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3nVUIbCtr5T2EwM$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04vEcABRlCU2EwEA@probst.demon.co.uk> <13905.49021.450460.578769@mjollnir.net.unc.edu> <7dvvGIAwGjU2Ew36@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <365336C3.A32@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <365336C3.A32@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: >I do look the player hand. >I take the player away from the table to check if: >L25A (inadvertent or not?) I usually decide at the table without taking the player away. >L27 (bid conventional or not?) I always take the player away from the table. >L21b1 (call maid as result of misinformation or not?) ... This is interesting: I do not take the player away, but perhaps I should. It is a sensible suggestion. -- 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 Nov 19 13:23:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:23:16 +1100 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 NAA07305 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:23:09 +1100 Received: from p07s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.8] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zgJoQ-0004IH-00; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:27:16 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "vitold" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:28:31 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1364$4c744c20$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 If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, and blaming it on you, If you can keep your head when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too.... You'll be a man my son. You quote Kipling...I think he was a TD, an Appeals Committee Chairman, and the Chairman of the Laws and Ethics Committee. He probably played Bridge, and possibly knew the Vanderbilt family! "Twisted by Knaves, to make a trap for fools" Surely a reference to taking a finesse when an end-play is marked! Perhaps these "fools" are the ones that make "stupid" bids that need to be changed under L25B. Vitold..for what it's worth, you apologies for your English are banal. Your English is perfectly good enough, and I suspect you know this. You should not use this as part of your argument. Those of use who claim to be native English speakers are well able to understand most of the contributions to the list. Occasionally a translation gives a different meaning to an interpretation, but it is rare. Cheers Anne -----Original Message----- From: Vitold To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >Hi all:) > >Thank you, Herman, for your remarks. But I dare to disagree with >you in several points that are seemed to me to be important. > >So - I have to acknowledge that we are using different English: >one - is mine and (I guess) nobody understands it, second - common >English. Otherwise - what was written by Herman about? > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Vitold wrote: >> > >> > Hi all:) >> > >> > I tried to keep silence - but I can't, sorry. I guess: it would be better if >> > I could:) >> > >> >> Then Vitold goes on about how the not seeing of partner's pass is not a >> silly mistake, and so on. >> >> Vitold fails to see where this discussion started. > >Sorry, Herman, but I was reading all the posts devoted to this thread from the >verybeginning. And I was not agree with proposed ruling - even inside of calibre >WBFLC's >interpretation > >> I know some of you are unhappy with that Law and don't want any changes, >> ever, but that's how the Laws are, and the WBFLC did not want to change >> this in the manner you would like. >> > >I did write that I am one "who keeps to the letter of the law", didn't I? Oryou >are one who didn't read it? Sorry for my non-understandable English:)) > >Then Herman exposed well-known story about WBFLC's decision. Asat second part of >my post I tried to explaine why this decision was wrong -so I will not repeat my >arguments. > >> The WBF decided that L25B only applied in cases of silly mistakes, and >> not in cases of "change of mind". I won't comment here on the legal >> problem they create by changing a Law without changing it, so let's go >> on. > >> Now some of you start discussing what are and what are not "silly mistakes". > >1. Little remark: as my English is rather poor I'd like to keep WBFLC's >decisionstrictly: there was no word "silly", there is word "stupid" in use. I do >not know >what conclusion may be after changing these words - but let us be with WBFLC. >For simplisity. And for sure:) >2. As there were no WBFLC's definitions of the "stupid bid" (exept the written >example) who can stop such a discussion?:) And what for? > >> Now some of these discussions are valid. The miscounting of ones own >> points, or something, do IMO mean that a change of mind has occured. >> >> But some others are frankly silly. > >Let us try to use rational arguments and not use emotional esteemations of >eachother. It'll be more useful - it's my personal opinion and position. I guess >that >a most of us has a lot of thorns under their tongue (Kipling, "The Book of Junle") > >but should we use them?:) > >> So let's stop trying to find out if it is silly not to notice your >> partner's bidding and rather concentrate on the real issue. > >OK - then I ask you to read the thread from the beginning. The player did not >passforcing opening bid. He passed because he had no opening bid himself - it was >underlined by Anne at 3-rd or 4-th post at the thread. The opening bid was >CARELESSLY not transmitted from one side of the screen to another. And >then - it was CARELESSLY not received at destination side. There was not >stupid/sillu bridge action (what was allowed to change). There was >CARELESS doing by both players at this side of screen. One was lucky because >it was not his partner who made forcing bid. WBFLC did not allow to chage >carelessly bridge action. Why do you insist on breaking the WBFLC's decision?:) >At this condition change Pass to bid WILL be change of mind. >And I repeated Anne's arguments. Nobody (including Herman) made rational >arguments against thiis position. Named it as "silly" is not cleverest argument, >is it?:) > >> So Vitold, please forget your dislike for this Law, you are not alone >> and there is nothing you can do about it anyway. >> > >So Herman - let us try to follow current WBFLC interpretation:) Andlet it'll be >permitted to me to make public my opinion about this interpretation:) > >> Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not >> and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid >> enough to warrant playing for Av-. >> > >Now I am not agree - by the Laws it is TD's obligations to observe the >Laws'execution. Players are obliged to follow the Laws. Then - there are TD's and >AC >for making decision if it is "stupid" mistake or something else. > >Best wishes Vitold > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 13:22:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:22:45 +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 NAA07292 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:22:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgJnz-0001xf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:26:48 +0000 Message-ID: <5KIfzlAsP0U2Ewnb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:02:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not >and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid >enough to warrant playing for Av-. Unfortunately that means that you are saying we should ignore the decision of the WBFLC, and that cannot be right. Because of that decision we are instructed only to allow L25B in the case of a "stupid mistake". We thus have to interpret that instruction, and that is what this thread is trying to do. 6: 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. -- 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 Nov 19 19:35:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:35:53 +1100 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 TAA08063 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:35:43 +1100 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 IAA27268 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:39:10 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 IAA19168 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:38:44 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981119084004.007d84e0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:40:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> References: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:42 18/11/98 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Let's all go back a few months. > >Among the 1987 Laws there was a L25B. It meant that if a player had >made a silly mistake, he could change his call, rather than play in a >cue bid, but his partner had to pass. > >So the WBF decided to change the law. In stead of playing for >bottom-or-top, the offender now gets the chance of playing for Av-, > >That far, everything all right. > >But when the new Laws were published, someone read the new L25B and said >"hey, this also means I can change my call if I change my mind", and >some discussion started about something that was called "the race". >The WBF decided that L25B only applied in cases of silly mistakes, and >not in cases of "change of mind". > >Now some of you start discussing what are and what are not "silly >mistakes". > >Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not >and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid >enough to warrant playing for Av-. > You made an accurate and useful review of the historical process about L25, but I'm afraid the situation is too confused to allow general agreement. Your conclusion is very strange and IMHO can't be correct. I read it like: let's the player decide to change his bid if he has won "the race" with LHO and if he confirms he made a "stupid mistake" and is prepared to play for av-. Where is the difference with the litteral reading of 1997 L25B, and why, in Lille, did the WBFLC feel the need to add an interpretation of this law, referring to "stupid mistakes"? Your conclusion circumvents the concept of "stupid bid" which, however undefined, the WBFLC intends TD to deal with. Unhappily problem stands. 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 Thu Nov 19 20:25:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:25:29 +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 UAA08119 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:25:23 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:27:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp20-237.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.237] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:27:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:32:57 -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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 > Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six > or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you > thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about > seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S > under the new L25B? Interesting., I am reading again and again the minutes of Lille and it gives me a headache. Suprise to call this an interpretation and not a change of law. "stupid mistake" must be something obvious and everybody can see it without exercing any "judgement" (e.g. pass on 1C forcing or on cue-bid). TD can see it is stupid without looking the player hand. In David Burn case you need to think (to "judge") before to bid 4P. TD need to look the hand and make a "judgement". Pass 2P is not "always" a stupid call because it depends of your hand. I can see the limit of this point of view. If a player did not see the 1C bid of his patner because he did not pull the tray so 1C forcing is different from 1C natural. The headhache is growing up !!! We had until now 4 different examples: 1- pass on a cue-bid thinking to play game or slam. it is not inadvertent (close to it!) but pass was never meant. 2- pass on 1C forcing - player did not see the bid. 3- pass on 1C natural - player did not see the bid, (same than David Burn case) 4- pass on 1C forcing - player forgot his system. Case n#5 : player wants to change his judgment. This is cover by the minutes of Lille and anyway it will be stupid for the player to play for AV- in that case. Cases 2 to 4 the player meant the call he made but it is a "stupid mistake" and we cannot say he is "changing his judgment". Following the words of the minutes of Lille we should allow the change. But this means than the new interpretion do not change anything. I am nearly sorry I came to this newsgroup my headache is now too big!! I return to play with my cats... Amicalement, Claude Dadoun. a cat is a chat in french. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 21:36:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:36:32 +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 VAA08290 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:36:26 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:38:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from bjn18-34.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.28.34] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:38:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:44:01 -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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Il est surprenant de constater le peu de difference qu'il y a parfois entre un grand echec et une grande reussite" In 1992 the french team (Chemla-Perron Levy-Mouiel Adad-Aujaleu) won the gold medal in the Olympics teams championships in Salsomaggiore. Just before that the team disputed the french trial to be selected. In the final (160 boards) with 2 flats boards more to play the team was 16 imps behind. Olivier Beauvillain (EBL TD) bid 4NT (BW asking aces) with one ace in hand and the end of the auction went : 4NT 5H (2 aces) 7NT. Beauvillain thought than 1 + 2 = 4 When he realised the "stupid mistake" he knew he could not change his bid and he lost the match by 1 imp. (after Salsomaggiore we started to call Beauvillain vice world champion) Amicalement, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 23:04:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:04:56 +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 XAA08576 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:04:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-154.uunet.be [194.7.14.154]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22085; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:09:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3654041B.4D6ABDD7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:42:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vitold , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <3651A7DD.65A3AC44@elnet.msk.ru> <3652C0CE.9521B2BF@village.uunet.be> <3652B719.515F2833@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > > Hi all:) > > Thank you, Herman, for your remarks. But I dare to disagree with > you in several points that are seemed to me to be important. > > So - I have to acknowledge that we are using different English: > one - is mine and (I guess) nobody understands it, second - common > English. Otherwise - what was written by Herman about? > Your english is sometimes a little flawed, but your argument are usually sound, and I do struggle through your posts and value your opinions. Let's not repeat everything that is being said. My point is that the new interpretation did not introduce a new concept into L25B, namely that it only applies to stupid mistakes, but rather, that it tells us that the Law is NOT to be used for changes of mind. Now whatever the reason, the passing of a forcing one club is not a "true" bridge decision, so the decision to now want to bid is not a "change of mind", and must qualify in the other category that L25B is supposed to cover. When passing an aces response at the five level, the player has made a "decision", namely not to go on to six. He then makes a stupid mistake, by passing, rather than correcting to the five level trump contract. That is the type of stupid mistake that L25B is all about. The corrected call does not involve a "change of mind". OTOH, if you are passing a 4Sp contract, and then decide you DO want to go on and ask aces, you ARE changing your mind, and L25B was not intended for this. Now IMO, passing a forcing 1Cl opening because you did not see it and then asking to take your call back when you do see it, is not a "change of mind". Player did make a decision, yes, and he now wants to make another decision, but this is not a change of mind over the facts as they lie. I agree that the miscounting an Ace in ones own hand is still somewhere in the middle, but usually this does not lead to silly contracts, only inferior ones, so it is simply a question of hand valuation, and change of that valuation (by recounting or finding another ace) can be considered changing ones mind. My point was, Vitold, that rather than trying to define "stupid mistake", which (as stated by Ton) is just a description, not a new law term, we should be trying to define "change of mind", and "silly contract". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 19 23:05:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:05:06 +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 XAA08584 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:05:00 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-154.uunet.be [194.7.14.154]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22111 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:09:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36540621.BE9692A4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:50:57 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or the > other: > > Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 > > Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six > or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you > thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about > seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S > under the new L25B? > A fine example, and sufficiently borderline to merit discussion. Several other cases would be simpler. However, the real test lies in the actions of the player. When noticing that 2S is in fact 3S, what does he do ? When it is a cue bid, his immediate reaction will be : now that is a stupid contract, this will certainly earn us a bottom, "director can I change my call ?". I don't think any player can be sufficiently quick in his "new" analysis (I have now tried all four combinations of i an y and I think I get it right - hey this thing has spel checking - no, wrong - well corrected now - sorry for the sidebar - where was I - let's repeat) I don't think any player can be sufficiently quick in his "new" analysis of the situation to find pass as a stupid call. He will usually just keep it there and hope 4Sp fails. If he does shout out immediately upon seeing the true call (and I would have to be convinced of some other reason why he saw a 2 when there is clearly a 3 on the table) AND if he thinks Av- is better than this certain bottom, because the whole room will be in game (will they ?), and it will make (will it ?), then I might be persuaded to let him have L25B. After all, the Law is still as it is written; The interpretation should still be thus : "did you think passing was a stupid mistake ?" then you can change it, if you want, and play for Av-. > Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some support > for my version of Law 25, which runs: > > Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. > Law 26... Indeed, but that is not under consideration until 2007, and I don't believe it will be on the cards even then. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 00:02:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:02:43 +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 AAA08717 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:02:38 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgTnP-00024y-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:49:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3652B719.515F2833@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3652B719.515F2833@elnet.msk.ru>, Vitold writes snip > >OK - then I ask you to read the thread from the beginning. The player did not >passforcing opening bid. He passed because he had no opening bid himself this argument has some merit IMO Vitold, but I still disagree with you. I am not allowed to know he doesn't have an opening bid (since we're not allowed to look at the hand when we rule). All I know is that the guy wants to change his call facing a forcing bid. The same applies when you pass a cue bid, you've just passed a forcing bid. Hence 25B applies since I am not allowed to use my "bridge judgment" here as there's no UI or MI. 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 Nov 20 00:02:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:02:50 +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 AAA08724 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:02:44 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgTnP-0006BN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:06:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:53:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or the >other: > >Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 > >Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six >or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you >thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about >seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S >under the new L25B? > >Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some support >for my version of Law 25, which runs: > >Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. >Law 26... > > Assuming you win the race and the TD pitches up (and since he refuses to look at your hand) you can insist he applies 25B for you. Try it some time down at the YC and we can start another thread :) 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 Nov 20 00:19:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:19:36 +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 AAA11029 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:19:29 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:21:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-81.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.81] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:21:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36549B2C.6181@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:26:52 -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: 25b odds References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L25b odds Auction vul ALL K.O. match S W N E 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) ?? south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. 7H = is + 13 imps 7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2 The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) = (.65*7) My cat Moustique (means mosquito in english) wants me to write this horrible scenario. Let suppose 7H went down one and the case is brought to the AC. TD decision is overrule and east pass stands. EW win 13 imps on the board. But now we have an appeal from south... (he would not bid 7H) Moustique (no need answer). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 00:26:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:26:17 +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 AAA11059 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:26:10 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:28:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-170.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.170] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:28:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36541D3F.55C1@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:29:35 +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: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be1364$4c744c20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 OAA04913 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, Anne, if I beg your pardon for my English language, it's not for the=20 occasion, I don't speak English and I try to write it with help of the dictionnary and a school book. 1=B0- In french pedagogic modulus we teach: Directors have to avoid to look player's hands before ruling. But we recommend to take away player in case of: Law 27 ( conventionnal bid or no ) Law 25 ( 25A or 25B ) Law 21 and eventually Law 47E2 2=B0Law 25B: I am afraid! Not by Director's comments but by Laws=20 committee! How is it possible to publish a such Law and then to write a minute different?? The worst, it seems to me,will be that with this law the behaviour of players will not be the same in KO and others tournaments. Look to an example give by my fellow C.Dadoun. 3=B0Perhaps, Kipling was a bridge player and why not a Director?I believe= d he was a good horse racing...In France we have also Montesquieu, he=20 wrote " If Law applies for everybody, everybody have to understand Law" Do you think Laws Committee read Montesquieu before draft Law 25 ? Amicably ? friendly ? best regards ? then: Amicalement. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 00:54:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:54:41 +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 AAA11212 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:54:35 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:57:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-170.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.170] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:56:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <365423EE.670@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:58:06 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01be10b0$ed641400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) > > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> > >> Please note, I am not the authority on this,[ no substitute for David > or > >> for Max] but would like to offer an opinion. > > > >Feel free to, your opinions are wellcome, but I think you are wrong. > > > >> I am aware that BBL regs [ not over-riden by regs for 5Th Premier > >> League] stipulate that North should "slide the bidding tray under the > >> centre of the screen so as to be visible only to players on the other > >> side". > >> It would appear that this did not happen. > >> South has bid without being able to see the whole of the bidding > tray. > >> BBL regs allow for changes of call under Law 25A only, but as > regulation > >> cannot over-ride Law, Law 25B is still available to you. > > > >It certainly is. > > > >> IMO this is > >> nothing like passing a Cue bid, and according to WBFLC > interpretation I > >> would not apply. > > > >Then I think you have misunderstood the interpretation. > > > >L25B is not intented for a change of mind, only for a "stupid mistake". > > > >I feel that this includes both the passing of a cue-bid, and the not > >noticing of partner's (or opponent's) opening. > > Do you mean that it would apply when your LHO passes with an 11 count > because he did not see his partner's opening non-forcing bid? > In the past I have got lots of bottoms and tops this way. It is Bridge. > I have gained or lost myself throught silly mistakes. The art of > concentration is one of the things that makes a good bridge player GOOD. > I think we are still second guessing the intention of the WBFLC. Did we > think that Lille was going to solve all our problems? > All of a sudden I think Law 25B is going to be one of our most used > Laws. Surely this was not the intention of the WBFLC! > > > >> North has been careless, and South has been careless. > >> I would rule that the Pass by South is made and must stand. If West > does > >> not rescue them N/S are playing in 1C. > >> Is this any different from (without screens) > >> 1C (f) P P (director, I did not see my pards bid?) > >> > > > >You mean that the inattentive passer is second behind the screen ? > > No.. I meant "without screens". I said so. > > > >I don't think it is any different, provided he makes his wish known > >before the tray is passed. > > > >But even if the tray is passed, I think L25B can still apply, and the > >rescue from the "absolutely silly contract" to the Av- is still > >possible. > > > > " The art of concentration is one of the things that makes a good bridge player GOOD" , I quote Anne and I approve heartily! Look to chess rules: piece touched, piece played , but chess game is a minor game is it not? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 02:47:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:47:33 +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 CAA11656 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:47:26 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA19734 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA06093 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:51:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:51:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811191551.KAA06093@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >L27 (bid conventional or not?) > > I always take the player away from the table. While I'm hesitant to make suggestions to those much more able than I, I can't help wondering whether it might be better to talk to the bidder's _partner_ away from the table. The question is what the IB looked like from his point of view, not what the IB'er actually intended. On a related topic, David had a very nice suggestion of how L27 might be changed in 2007. His motive was to delete the controversial use of "conventional." Unfortunately, I cannot remember exactly what his suggestion was. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "If the TD can determine the likely sequence in which the IB was intended, and if there's a bid in the legal sequence that conveys at least the same information, then (27B1a, no penalty)." This would typically allow, for example, 2NT-P-2D to be corrected to 3D even if playing transfers. The question becomes what information the IB conveyed and not whether the way it was conveyed was conventional or not. But we have a while before we will have to worry about this. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 02:49:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:49:59 +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 CAA11683 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:49:52 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zgWPH-001b6cC; Thu, 19 Nov 98 10:54 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:54:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 25b odds In-Reply-To: <36549B2C.6181@wanadoo.fr> References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_6618927==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_6618927==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:26 PM 11/19/98 , Claude Dadoun wrote: >L25b odds >Auction vul ALL K.O. match > S W N E > 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) > 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) > ?? >south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. >What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? > >We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. >7H = is + 13 imps >7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2 >The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) = (.65*7) > >My cat Moustique (means mosquito in english) wants me to write >this horrible scenario. >Let suppose 7H went down one and the case is brought to the AC. >TD decision is overrule and east pass stands. >EW win 13 imps on the board. >But now we have an appeal from south... (he would not bid 7H) > >Moustique (no need answer). > How did this get to the AC? EW cannot appeal a ruling by the TD that they requested. NS has nothing to appeal--They had full knowledge that E passed and then changed to 4S. This is Authorized Information to them, but they use it at their own risk. Fine/Penalize whoever appeals for a frivolous appeal. John S. Nichols --=====================_6618927==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:26 PM 11/19/98 , Claude Dadoun wrote:
>L25b odds
>Auction vul ALL K.O. match
>            S   W     N    E
>           1H   1S    4H  pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp)
>           4NT        5H (2 aces and no HK)
>           ??
>south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13.
>What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match?
>
>We suppose than the other room will bid 6H.
>7H =   is + 13 imps
>7H-1   is - 7  imps  (-17 + 3)/2
>The odds to bid 7H now are 35 %   (.35*13) = (.65*7)
>
>My cat Moustique (means mosquito in english) wants me to write
>this horrible scenario.
>Let suppose 7H went down one and the case is brought to the AC.
>TD decision is overrule and east pass stands.
>EW win 13 imps on the board.
>But now we have an appeal from south... (he would not bid 7H)
>
>Moustique (no need answer).
>

How did this get to the AC? 

EW cannot appeal a ruling by the TD that they requested. 
NS has nothing to appeal--They had full knowledge that E passed and then changed to 4S.  This is Authorized Information to them, but they use it at their own risk. 

Fine/Penalize whoever appeals for a frivolous appeal.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_6618927==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 02:57:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:57:40 +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 CAA11740 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:57:28 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20120 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA06110 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811191601.LAA06110@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Because of that decision we are instructed only to allow L25B in the > case of a "stupid mistake". We thus have to interpret that instruction, > and that is what this thread is trying to do. > 6: 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. I am, in my usual way, still desparately wondering whether we can find a Type 1 way to interpret this. (Needless to say, I am fond of neither L25B nor the interpretation, but we seem to be stuck with both.) The LC has made it difficult, but what about the following: If there are no new facts available to the player, we assume it is a stupid mistake. Something has gone on in the player's mind, we don't know what, but he can always claim his original action was stupid. If there are new facts -- e.g. LHO was reaching for the red card -- we deem it a rectification of judgment, and no change is allowed. Unfortunately, if the LC had meant this, they probably would have written their interpretation differently. Can anyone else suggest an interpretation that can be applied without mind reading? Or even an interpretation that will not work to the disadvantage of players unfamiliar with the Laws? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 03:12:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:12:50 +1100 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 DAA11793 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:12:43 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18514 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:15:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199811191615.KAA18514@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:15:36 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not > >and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid > >enough to warrant playing for Av-. > > Unfortunately that means that you are saying we should ignore the > decision of the WBFLC, and that cannot be right. > > Because of that decision we are instructed only to allow L25B in the > case of a "stupid mistake". We thus have to interpret that instruction, > and that is what this thread is trying to do. > But don't you see, David, that's exactly what Herman is proposing. He is proposing that we determine whether a stupid mistake has occurred by asking the player 'would you really prefer to play for Av- rather than play your contract?', and if he says 'yes' we take his word that he made a stupid mistake. That may not be a very scientific method, but at least it allows for conclusive judgements. :) Herman has also proposed that we try to examine the meaning of 'change of mind' instead. I am not convinced that that will be any more helpful than arguing about 'stupid mistake'. :( > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 03:27:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:27:45 +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 DAA11829 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:27:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgWzl-0006cf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:31:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:25:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36540621.BE9692A4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36540621.BE9692A4@village.uunet.be> 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 Herman De Wael wrote: >My point is that the new interpretation did not introduce a new concept >into L25B, namely that it only applies to stupid mistakes, but rather, >that it tells us that the Law is NOT to be used for changes of mind. This is the bit that I cannot understand, and frankly appears to me to contradict itself. The Law says: 'Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not apply: ...' Now, simple minded people like myself would presume that this means that a player may change his mind, because this Law gives him the right to change his mind. Thus we would allow a change because of a change of mind or for any other reason [subject to the various rules in L25B] until the Lille interpretation. You say the new interpretation 'did not introduce a new concept': please tell us in what way it does not. ----------------------- Herman De Wael wrote: >I don't think any player can be sufficiently quick in his "new" analysis >(I have now tried all four combinations of i an y and I think I get it >right - hey this thing has spel checking - no, wrong - well corrected >now - sorry for the sidebar - where was I - let's repeat) >I don't think any player can be sufficiently quick in his "new" analysis >of the situation to find pass as a stupid call. He will usually just >keep it there and hope 4Sp fails. >If he does shout out immediately upon seeing the true call (and I would >have to be convinced of some other reason why he saw a 2 when there is >clearly a 3 on the table) AND if he thinks Av- is better than this >certain bottom, because the whole room will be in game (will they ?), >and it will make (will it ?), then I might be persuaded to let him have >L25B. He does not necessarily need to be quick for this situation to occur! He passes 2S, and before LHO calls, LHO says "How do you play your 3S opening?"! --------------- Claude Dadoun wrote: >L25b odds >Auction vul ALL K.O. match > S W N E > 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) > 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) > ?? >south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. >What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? > >We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. >7H =3D is + 13 imps >7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2=20 >The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) =3D (.65*7) C'est vrai. >My cat Moustique (means mosquito in english) wants me to write=20 >this horrible scenario. Bonjour Moustique. Quango dit "Mrow!". >Let suppose 7H went down one and the case is brought to the AC. >TD decision is overrule and east pass stands. >EW win 13 imps on the board. >But now we have an appeal from south... (he would not bid 7H) I think this is a reasonable basis for appeal. I wonder how easy it would be to explain to the AC! ---------------- LORMANT Philippe wrote: >Anne, if I beg your pardon for my English language, it's not for the=20 >occasion, I don't speak English and I try to write it with help of the >dictionnary and a school book. Look, your English can be understood, and that is all that matters. There is no-one writing to BLML who needs to apologise for their English [except perhaps a couple of Californians ] since we can understand everyone. >2=B0Law 25B: I am afraid! Not by Director's comments but by Laws=20 >committee! How is it possible to publish a such Law and then to write >a minute different?? What we are doing primarily on BLML is trying to understand and interpret the Laws. This includes Laws we do not like, that we do not believe in, and that are confusing. Well, of course it does, since no- one would argue or discuss the easy and obvious Laws. My own view, and that, I suspect, of several others on BLML, is that Bridge would be a better game without L25B. The general public seem to have accepted L25A quite well, with the heightened awareness of this Law created by bidding boxes, so I would accept L25A in its current form, and write a new L25B: B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction=20 No call may be substituted when section A does not apply. >The worst, it seems to me,will be that with this law the behaviour of >players will not be the same in KO and others tournaments. Look to an >example give by my fellow C.Dadoun. While it is often not realised, many rulings have different effects in KO from other tournaments. That is not something we need worry about: we should just accept it. >3=B0Perhaps, Kipling was a bridge player and why not a Director?I believed >he was a good horse racing...In France we have also Montesquieu, he=20 >wrote " If Law applies for everybody, everybody have to understand Law" >Do you think Laws Committee read Montesquieu before draft Law 25 ? No, but I suggest that they should before 2007! Amicalement --=20 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 ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 04:29:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:30 +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 EAA12018 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgXxL-00078j-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:33:24 +0000 Message-ID: <27OU$hAbEFV2Ewdl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:10:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25b odds References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> <36549B2C.6181@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: > EW cannot appeal a ruling by the TD that they requested. Why not? -- 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 Nov 20 04:29:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:32 +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 EAA12024 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgXxI-00078B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:33:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:26:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <199811191615.KAA18514@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811191615.KAA18514@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not >> >and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid >> >enough to warrant playing for Av-. >> >> Unfortunately that means that you are saying we should ignore the >> decision of the WBFLC, and that cannot be right. >> >> Because of that decision we are instructed only to allow L25B in the >> case of a "stupid mistake". We thus have to interpret that instruction, >> and that is what this thread is trying to do. >> > > But don't you see, David, that's exactly what Herman is proposing. >He is proposing that we determine whether a stupid mistake has occurred by >asking the player 'would you really prefer to play for Av- rather than >play your contract?', and if he says 'yes' we take his word that he made a >stupid mistake. That may not be a very scientific method, but at least it >allows for conclusive judgements. :) I see what you mean. I bid 7NT, LHO reaches with a glint in his eye for the double card, and you want to let me change my call because now I know there is an ace missing - and 40% in 6NT making is definitely going to be an improvement on 7NT-1! I believe the interpretation from Lille was specifically to stop this which appears to be legal under the Law book. Do you want this to be legal? -- 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 Nov 20 04:29:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:29 +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 EAA12017 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:29:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgXxI-00078A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:33:21 +0000 Message-ID: <970WfnAzOFV2Ewdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:21:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <199811191551.KAA06093@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811191551.KAA06093@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> >L27 (bid conventional or not?) >> >> I always take the player away from the table. > >While I'm hesitant to make suggestions to those much more able than >I, I can't help wondering whether it might be better to talk to the >bidder's _partner_ away from the table. The question is what the >IB looked like from his point of view, not what the IB'er actually >intended. > >On a related topic, David had a very nice suggestion of how L27 might >be changed in 2007. His motive was to delete the controversial use of >"conventional." Unfortunately, I cannot remember exactly what his >suggestion was. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "If the >TD can determine the likely sequence in which the IB was intended, and >if there's a bid in the legal sequence that conveys at least the same >information, then (27B1a, no penalty)." That was Bobby Wolff's idea, not mine. >This would typically allow, for example, 2NT-P-2D to be corrected to 3D >even if playing transfers. The question becomes what information the >IB conveyed and not whether the way it was conveyed was conventional or >not. My first idea was that whether the insufficient or the sufficient bid is conventional or not should be irrelevant. In the absence of UI, I would always allow the bid to be corrected to the next legal bid up. Usually people just tell me this won't work, without thought. Please ignore your own first reaction, think about it, and then tell me what is wrong with it. If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as it is not conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. >But we have a while before we will have to worry about this. I am not sure that throwing everything at the WBFLC during 2006 is the answer: perhaps a little at a time might work better. -- 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 Nov 20 05:54:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:54:55 +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 FAA12302 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:54:42 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-16.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.16]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA30637760 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <365469CF.EDC9DB40@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:56:15 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36540621.BE9692A4@village.uunet.be> 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 OAA30637760 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would it be a good idea for the laws to provide a mechanism to deal with the changing of illegal calls? Also, should the laws prevent the call changer from making a subsequent mistake if he is so inclined- thereby precluding the NOS from possibly profiting from it? Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: snip > B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction > No call may be substituted when section A does not apply. >=20 > >The worst, it seems to me,will be that with this law the behaviour of > >players will not be the same in KO and others tournaments. Look to an > >example give by my fellow C.Dadoun. >=20 > While it is often not realised, many rulings have different effects i= n > KO from other tournaments. That is not something we need worry about: > we should just accept it. >=20 > >3=B0Perhaps, Kipling was a bridge player and why not a Director?I beli= eved > >he was a good horse racing...In France we have also Montesquieu, he > >wrote " If Law applies for everybody, everybody have to understand Law= " > >Do you think Laws Committee read Montesquieu before draft Law 25 ? >=20 > No, but I suggest that they should before 2007! >=20 > Amicalement >=20 > -- > 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 ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 06:54:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:54:09 +1100 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 GAA12481 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:54:03 +1100 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0zgaDg-001b6cC; Thu, 19 Nov 98 14:58 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:58:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 25b odds In-Reply-To: <27OU$hAbEFV2Ewdl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> <36549B2C.6181@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_21277034==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_21277034==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:10 PM 11/19/98 , David Stevenson wrote: >John S. Nichols wrote: > >> EW cannot appeal a ruling by the TD that they requested. > > Why not? > What are they going to appeal? East goes to the AC and says "I thought I made a stupid mistake so I asked and the TD to let me change it. Now I don't think the ori original bid was stupid, I was stupid to ask to change it. " Isn't any AC is going to rule "Stupid Appeal". John S. Nichols --=====================_21277034==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 05:10 PM 11/19/98 , David Stevenson wrote:
>John S. Nichols wrote:
>
>>    EW cannot appeal a ruling by the TD that they requested.
>
>  Why not?
>

What are they going to appeal? 

East goes to the AC and says "I thought I made a stupid mistake so I asked and the TD to let me change it.  Now I don't think the ori original bid was stupid, I was stupid to ask to change it.  " 

Isn't any AC is going to rule "Stupid Appeal".

John S. Nichols
--=====================_21277034==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 08:05:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:05:23 +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 IAA12712 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:05:16 +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 QAA30741137 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:11:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3654886A.E56FACA6@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:06:50 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The way I see things, a bridge decision is a player's first bridge act at their turn. Everything else is something other than bridge. That is not to say that things which are not bridge do not occur during the game. They do. And often. Players BOOT and POOT. They misbid and misexplain. They change their calls. And do other things. They are rude, distracting, and intimidating. Just because these things happen during the game does not mean that they are bridge or are 'a part of bridge'. Just because the laws address such things does not mean that they are bridge- unless the lawmakers say so. However, the lawmakers do say so. They say that if you make a stupid call you can change it and attempt to try to recover some of your score. They say you can play out of turn and not be penalized. They say you can revoke and not be penalized. They say that your opponent can play out of turn and not be penalized but you will be instead. Tournament players by their membership in the various bridge leagues have agreed to accept the laws handed down by the lawmakers. Ours is not to reason why, but to comply. Some have congregated to this newsgroup in order to sort out how the laws are to be applied. In the process we frequently enough find that some laws are confusing since the interpretation might change depending on the situation or TD. We also stumble onto laws which tie us into knots in an attempt to translate it into practice. At a minimum, law must satisfy at least three conditions to create maximum benefits: 1. it must be WRITTEN to reflect the nature of what is desired. 2. It must provide for adjudication that can achieve a fair and just result. 3. It must be understandable [as intended] to anyone of intelligence who reads it. I think that our discussion of L25 and the LC's recent amendment at Lillie make it clear that none of the above criteria are satisfied by L25. Some hard thinking is in order. I have some ideas on the matter. Roger Pewick Lormant wrote: also Montesquieu, he wrote " If Law applies for everybody, everybody have to understand Law" Claude Dadoun wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > Your hand is: 10 A874 AK65 A973 > > Partner opens 2S, which you play as showing a horrible hand with six > > or perhaps five spades, so you pass. Then you notice that what you > > thought was 2S is in fact 3S, showing a classic pre-empt with about > > seven playing tricks. Would you be permitted to change your call to 4S > > under the new L25B? > > Interesting., > I am reading again and again the minutes of Lille and it gives me a > headache. > Suprise to call this an interpretation and not a change of law. > > "stupid mistake" must be something obvious and everybody can see it > without exercing any "judgement" (e.g. pass on 1C forcing or on > cue-bid). > TD can see it is stupid without looking the player hand. > In David Burn case you need to think (to "judge") before to bid 4P. > TD need to look the hand and make a "judgement". > Pass 2P is not "always" a stupid call because it depends of your hand. > > I can see the limit of this point of view. > If a player did not see the 1C bid of his patner because he did not pull > the tray so 1C forcing is different from 1C natural. > > The headhache is growing up !!! > > We had until now 4 different examples: > 1- pass on a cue-bid thinking to play game or slam. > it is not inadvertent (close to it!) but pass was never meant. > 2- pass on 1C forcing - player did not see the bid. > 3- pass on 1C natural - player did not see the bid, > (same than David Burn case) > 4- pass on 1C forcing - player forgot his system. > > Case n#5 : player wants to change his judgment. > This is cover by the minutes of Lille and anyway it will be stupid for > the player to play for AV- in that case. > > Cases 2 to 4 the player meant the call he made but it is a "stupid > mistake" and we cannot say he is "changing his judgment". > Following the words of the minutes of Lille we should allow the change. > But this means than the new interpretion do not change anything. > > I am nearly sorry I came to this newsgroup my headache is now too big!! > I return to play with my cats... > > Amicalement, > Claude Dadoun. > > a cat is a chat in french. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 09:43:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:43:44 +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 JAA13061 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:43:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgcrc-000520-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:47:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:43:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <199811191551.KAA06093@cfa183.harvard.edu> <970WfnAzOFV2Ewdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <970WfnAzOFV2Ewdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down >version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as it is not >conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. This is very badly worded. What I meant was: If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as the next legal bid up is not conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. -- 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 Nov 20 10:12:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:21 +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 KAA13141 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:14 +1100 Received: from modem6.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.134] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zgdJN-00015d-00; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:16:29 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:51:00 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ========================================= ---------- > From: David Burn > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) > Date: 18 November 1998 20:14 > > A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or the > other: > > > Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some support > for my version of Law 25, which runs:- ------------------------------------------\x/--------------------------------- --------------- > Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. > Law 26... > ++++ Clean ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 10:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:28 +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 KAA13148 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:21 +1100 Received: from modem6.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.134] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zgdJO-00015d-00; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:16:31 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:09:37 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ==================================== > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 16 November 1998 15:15 > > At 03:57 PM 11/13/98 +0000, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > -------------------------------------------\X/-------------------------------- ------------------- > There is no doubt that an AC has the right to give (or cancel) a PP when > the matter is brought to them on appeal. My point concerned whether they > have the right to do so when the matter has not been so brought; whether > they have, in effect, the right to expand the scope of their inquiry to > cover matters that were not germane to the ruling being appealed, even > though they may have arisen out of the same facts. I don't think it > matters whether the ruling in question was to give (or not give) a PP, an > AssAS or an ArtAs; the question is purely one of jurisdiction. > > On reflection, though, perhaps they do. This may have been opened up in > the 1997 laws. As David points out, L93B says "the committee may exercise > all powers assigned... to the Director". And one of those powers, new in > 1997 (L83), is to "refer... matter[s] to an appropriate committee". That > seems to suggest that ACs may now, acting alone, take jurisdiction over > matters that have not been appealed to them by either a contestant or a TD. > Was this intended by the WBFLC? Is this how we should read the law now? > ++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that established in Law 81C6. A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature and, as can be educed from the wording of the law, addresses the question of inconvenience caused more generally to other players or to the conduct and progress of the event by the inattention, carelessness or negligence, of a player at fault. This is the point that Marvin French has not absorbed when he seeks to argue that 90B is restrictive on the powers in 90A; he fails to pick up the fact that the procedural penalty targets different concerns from the penalty provisions in the laws of which 90A makes mention, and presents a separate and parallel issue. It is thus not to be anticipated that the examples in 90B will include matters dealt with by the basic laws. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 20 10:12:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:35 +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 KAA13154 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:27 +1100 Received: from modem6.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.134] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zgdJZ-00015d-00; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:16:41 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:15:34 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ==================================== > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 16 November 1998 15:15 > > At 03:57 PM 11/13/98 +0000, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > -------------------------------------------\X/-------------------------------- ------------------- > There is no doubt that an AC has the right to give (or cancel) a PP when > the matter is brought to them on appeal. My point concerned whether they > have the right to do so when the matter has not been so brought; whether > they have, in effect, the right to expand the scope of their inquiry to > cover matters that were not germane to the ruling being appealed, even > though they may have arisen out of the same facts. I don't think it > matters whether the ruling in question was to give (or not give) a PP, an > AssAS or an ArtAs; the question is purely one of jurisdiction. > > On reflection, though, perhaps they do. This may have been opened up in > the 1997 laws. As David points out, L93B says "the committee may exercise > all powers assigned... to the Director". And one of those powers, new in > 1997 (L83), is to "refer... matter[s] to an appropriate committee". That > seems to suggest that ACs may now, acting alone, take jurisdiction over > matters that have not been appealed to them by either a contestant or a TD. > Was this intended by the WBFLC? Is this how we should read the law now? > ++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that established in Law 81C6. A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature and, as can be educed from the wording of the law, addresses the question of inconvenience caused more generally to other players or to the conduct and progress of the event by the inattention, carelessness or negligence, of a player at fault. This is the point that Marvin French has not absorbed when he seeks to argue that 90B is restrictive on the powers in 90A; he fails to pick up the fact that the procedural penalty targets different concerns from the penalty provisions in the laws of which 90A makes mention, and presents a separate and parallel issue which may or may not arise in a matter which is the prime subject of the Director's ruling. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 00:06:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:35 +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 AAA14607 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:29 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-36.uunet.be [194.7.13.36]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27161 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:10:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3655568B.FBE650D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:46:19 +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: 25b odds References: <000401be1330$0e0948c0$af2e63c3@david-burn> <36546459.376D@wanadoo.fr> <36547501.72AA@wanadoo.fr> <36549B2C.6181@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bravo Claude, and welcome to the club. You have now posted your first totally unrealistic fictitious example, and will soon learn how much can be said about such a thing. Claude Dadoun wrote: > > L25b odds > Auction vul ALL K.O. match > S W N E > 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) > 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) > ?? > south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. > What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? > > We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. > 7H = is + 13 imps > 7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2 > The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) = (.65*7) > > My cat Moustique (means mosquito in english) wants me to write > this horrible scenario. > Let suppose 7H went down one and the case is brought to the AC. > TD decision is overrule and east pass stands. > EW win 13 imps on the board. > But now we have an appeal from south... (he would not bid 7H) > > Moustique (no need answer). Claude has put this in telegram style, and maybe some of you have not yet understood the problem he is posing. Let's see what is needed for this scenario to become reality : 1) Firstly we should establish that the calculations are correct. In order for this to happen, we MUST be talking about knock-out play. Then L86B can apply. This law applies when non-blancing scores are awarded, and it has a reference to L12C. The non-balancing scores that arise from L25B are not mentioned here, but I suppose that since there is only a bracketed reference, this can be interpreted as a non-limitative example, and the same Law applies here. After all, what else can you do if both teams end up below average? So indeed, when 7H fails, the score will become -7 IMPS to NS and +7 IMPS to EW. 2) Secondly we need a player who is so well versed in the rules (probably a BLML reader) that he knows what the result of 7H-1 will be, considering the directors ruling. Since we have only just now agreed on this (have we ?) this is truely fictitious. 3) Thirdly we need to establish that South really knows that 13 tricks will only depend upon the finding of the Queen of trumps. Probably the easiest decision for the AC to determine. 4) Fourthly South needs to convince the AC that he realised this at the time, that he had calculated that a 35% chance of success was enough for the grand to be a worthwile risk, and that he bid it only on this premise. This calculation is easy in retrospect, but it may be hard to prove that the calculation was performed at the table. 5) as an aside, if this is with screens, the example needs to be adapted, as it was East who has been given the option, and South should not be knowing that opponents are playing for -3IMPs maximum. 6) Then we need to determine that TD did in fact make an error in judgment in that East was after all NOT allowed to change his call. Probably an easy one here too. In fact where is the stupid mistake in passing 4H ? 7) Then we must determine what correction the CTD (or now the AC) has already brought to the TD mistake. Probably he has awarded Av+ to both sides, resulting in a net zero result. Now if the other table are in fact in 6H, the not bidding of 7 would also result in a net total of zero, so there is no damage. But what if the result at the other table is 6SX-5 and there would be a swing in either direction if 6H= is the table result ? However, that last consideration brings us to a totally different question, and one which does not need a wrong application of L25B, but has a much broader implication : How do we calculate an artificial adjusted score in team play, and in knock-out team play ? Let's start another thread on that one, if you like ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 00:06:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:14 +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 AAA14591 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:06 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-36.uunet.be [194.7.13.36]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27179 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:10:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:47:29 +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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recap from my post to the 25b odds article, now more general : How do we calculate an artificial adjusted score in team play, and in knock-out team play ? Let's start another thread on that one, if you like ! Who would like ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 00:06:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:17 +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 AAA14597 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:06:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-36.uunet.be [194.7.13.36]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27214 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:10:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365560CF.57E473FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:30:07 +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: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <199811191615.KAA18514@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > But don't you see, David, that's exactly what Herman is proposing. > >He is proposing that we determine whether a stupid mistake has occurred by > >asking the player 'would you really prefer to play for Av- rather than > >play your contract?', and if he says 'yes' we take his word that he made a > >stupid mistake. That may not be a very scientific method, but at least it > >allows for conclusive judgements. :) > > I see what you mean. I bid 7NT, LHO reaches with a glint in his eye > for the double card, and you want to let me change my call because now I > know there is an ace missing - and 40% in 6NT making is definitely going > to be an improvement on 7NT-1! > > I believe the interpretation from Lille was specifically to stop this > which appears to be legal under the Law book. Do you want this to be > legal? > Take two stories : 4NT pass 5Di pass oh, 2 aces out, let's stay in 5 pass oops, I forgot to correct to the correct trump suit. and 4NT pass 5Di pass oh, 1 ace out of 5, and I have 3, that makes 4 aces, so let's bid the grand 7Sp oops, I forgot that there should be 5 aces. Intuitively, I would allow L25B in the first example, not in the second. But we need to find a difference among them. Let's try : In both cases, the player was in possession of all the correct information. In both cases, nothing happened to make him change the information in his possession (we would almost certainly rule differently if meanwhile a question was asked, even to the player himself, and he now realises that he made a mistake in system). In both cases, he has made a bidding judgment. In the first one, to stay out of slam, in the second to go to the grand. In both cases, he has made a call. In both cases, he now finds his partnership are in a contract. In both cases, he now realises this contract will almost certainly result in a bottom. In both cases, he wants to change that call. There is one difference though : In the first case, he wants to change his call to one which corresponds to the bridge judgment he has made. In the second case, he wants to change his call to one corresponding to a different bridge judgment (not play the grand but the small slam). That is what is meant with : change of mind - when in possession of the same information, make a different bridge judgment. In the second case, the bridge judgment was stupid. In the first case, the action stupidly did not conform to the judgment. Does that help with the unseen 1Cl opening ? Not yet. Let's try the same with two sets of examples : (1Cl) pass I have no opening values, so pass oops, my partner has opened a strong club, this is a silly contract. or 1Cl pass I have 6 points and 5 spades, so 1Sp oops, we are playing strong club, Squeeze style, and this promises Game values and says nothing about spades, we will almost certainly land in a silly game contract. Intuitively, I would allow L25B in the first case and not in the second. Now : In both cases the player made a bidding judgment. In both cases this judgment was sound. In both cases, the player now realises some changed information, making that bidding judgment irrelevant. In both cases, player wants to change his call, now making a new bidding judgment, but without calling the previous one silly. In both cases, the player can clearly see his not changing the bidding will result in a silly contract and playing for Av- will be to his benefit. In both cases, the player has made a silly mistake. So where is the difference here ? In the first case, the mistake is external. Player did not take in the correct situation, for whatever reason. In the second case, the mistake is internal. Player forgot his system. This is in fact the same distinction as in the first case. Not bidding 5Sp may be considered an external mistake. Miscounting the number of Aces may be considered an internal mistake. All bridge actions are the result of three processes : 1- gathering of information : noticing the bidding = external 2- processing the information, making a judgment = internal 3- acting upon the information : bid out the appropriate contract and putting that card on the table = external We may say that all mistakes in 1 and 3 are correctable, those in 2 are not. But again, we must draw the line somewhere. Gathering information = taking 13 cards, what if you take only 12 ? Making the judgment = deciding not to go to slam, but doesn't that include the decision of bidding the final contract ? In contrast to some who don't like this Law, and want to scrap L25B altogether, I do like the new version, but would prefer doing away with the distinction altogether. After all, if a player is quick enough to realise he has made a mistake (even in the counting of his aces), then why not let him benefit from the same provisions ? But we're stuck with L25B as well as the interpretation and I would propose to try and draw the lines somewhere, and rather stop the philosofical discussions (of which I am the most guilty) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 00:18:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:18:28 +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 AAA16911 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:18:20 +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 IAA21461 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:37:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120082434.0071b7b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:24:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <01BE1163.94BE8160@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:16 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >I believe this is why Grattan indicated that he was communicating the >material from Lille to the appropriate National and Zonal organisations >first, before sharing it with BLML. In other words, it was first >disseminated through channels, then disseminated here as well for those of >us who have expressed interest. Is this not as it should be? It is just as it should be; if only it were! In the ACBL, the "channels" seem to reach only as far as the TDs who work at the NABCs. A few lower-level TDs will learn of the communication by word of mouth, but sometimes that takes on the aspect of a game of Rumor. We'll be lucky if "the word" reaches half the TDs in North America before the 2007 laws come out. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 00:24:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:24:46 +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 AAA16941 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:24:40 +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 IAA21637 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:44:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120083056.0071c7b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:30:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lille Appeal In-Reply-To: <365066EC.688956E@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19981113105649.007239cc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19981116085746.0071991c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:54 PM 11/16/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >We are all saying the same thing. >"we have no agreement" in itself is incorrect information. > >You did not agree with your partner to pass a 4333 hand of 7 points, did >you? >Yet answering that you did not agree to this may be correct, but >immaterial, as it is AS IF you had this agreement, that the ruling will >be made. >Please don't attack the example, I know it's stupid and probably faulty >as well, but I hope you see my point with it. > >David is correct in saying that whether or not you made the actual >agreement, you will be judged equally, if the TD or AC determines that >both of you were along the same lines. There are three possible sources of one's determination as to the meaning of partner's call: (a) explicit agreements, (b) implicit agreements, and (c) general bridge knowledge and experience. David and Herman seem to be suggesting that (c) is presumptively inapplicable whenever the determination is correct ("both of you were along the same lines"). That sounds suspiciously like the "rule of coincidence", which I thought this group had soundly rejected as inconsistent with the laws. 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 Nov 21 00:42:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:42:09 +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 AAA17015 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:42:03 +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 JAA22246 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:01:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120084819.00724908@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:48:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <199811191601.LAA06110@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:01 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >I am, in my usual way, still desparately wondering whether we can find >a Type 1 way to interpret this. (Needless to say, I am fond of neither >L25B nor the interpretation, but we seem to be stuck with both.) The >LC has made it difficult, but what about the following: > >If there are no new facts available to the player, we assume it is >a stupid mistake. Something has gone on in the player's mind, we >don't know what, but he can always claim his original action was >stupid. If there are new facts -- e.g. LHO was reaching for the >red card -- we deem it a rectification of judgment, and no change >is allowed. > >Unfortunately, if the LC had meant this, they probably would have >written their interpretation differently. Can anyone else suggest >an interpretation that can be applied without mind reading? Or even >an interpretation that will not work to the disadvantage of players >unfamiliar with the Laws? After reading and considering our discussion, I've come to the conclusion that Herman's approach is the right way to go, at least unless and until we get further clarification from the WBFLC. Steve gets his "type 1" interpretation, and I get a resolution to my concern that the new interpretation might lead me to make rulings very much different from what non-BLML (ACBL) TDs are likely make based solely on the wording of TFLB. Herman's position seems to boil down to: (a) The determination as to whether a player's call is a "stupid mistake" is made by the player himself. (b) A willingness to play on for a maximum of A- is an ipso facto determination that he judges himself to have made a stupid mistake. 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 Nov 21 01:03:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:03:34 +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 BAA17089 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:03:12 +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 JAA22859 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:22:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120090919.0071d0d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:09:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >Eric Landau wrote: >> > >> There is no doubt that an AC has the right to give (or cancel) a PP when >> the matter is brought to them on appeal. My point concerned whether they >> have the right to do so when the matter has not been so brought; whether >> they have, in effect, the right to expand the scope of their inquiry to >> cover matters that were not germane to the ruling being appealed, even >> though they may have arisen out of the same facts. I don't think it >> matters whether the ruling in question was to give (or not give) a PP, an >> AssAS or an ArtAs; the question is purely one of jurisdiction. >> >> On reflection, though, perhaps they do. This may have been opened up in >> the 1997 laws. As David points out, L93B says "the committee may exercise >> all powers assigned... to the Director". And one of those powers, new in >> 1997 (L83), is to "refer... matter[s] to an appropriate committee". That >> seems to suggest that ACs may now, acting alone, take jurisdiction over >> matters that have not been appealed to them by either a contestant or a TD. >> Was this intended by the WBFLC? Is this how we should read the law now? >> >++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that >established in Law 81C6. > A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of >the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the >table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to >the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature and, as can be educed from the >wording of the law, addresses the question of inconvenience caused more >generally to other players or to the conduct and progress of the event by >the inattention, carelessness or negligence, of a player at fault. This is >the >point that Marvin French has not absorbed when he seeks to argue that >90B is restrictive on the powers in 90A; he fails to pick up the fact that >the procedural penalty targets different concerns from the penalty >provisions in the laws of which 90A makes mention, and presents a >separate and parallel issue. It is thus not to be anticipated that the >examples in 90B will include matters dealt with by the basic laws. Understood and accepted. But it doesn't answer the question I was trying to raise. L93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director..." Grattan has shed additional light on the intended meaning of "all powers assigned... to the Director"; what is needed, however, is some guidance as to the intended meaning of "in adjudicating appeals". In particular, does it mean, as it would seem to on superficial reading, that the committee "may exercise all powers..." only in regard to matters which have properly reached them through the appeals process, or does it give them carte blanche to exercise those powers in any situation of their choosing? 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 Nov 21 03:32:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:32:46 +1100 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 DAA17691 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:32:38 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA29350 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:36:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029325; Fri Nov 20 10:36:04 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1479.CDE6B5C0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:34:59 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1479.CDE6B5C0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:08:50 -0500 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the lower levels most ACBL certified directors don't even know 25B is in the law book, let alone that there are restrictions on when it is to be applied. (Of course they also don't know about Laws the ACBL has opted out of, which helps to nullify the ignorance.) A regular mailing to certified TD's from Memphis would be a fine idea. It probably should also go to club managers. Better rulings, well understood and clearly and tactfully explained help to keep the paying customers happy. Random wrong rulings anger many and drive them away. They also lead to arguments and perceived injustice when the players involved finally play in tourneys where the trained TD's give correct rulings. We need better continuing director education. That still does not mean that disseminating information through BLML is in any way wrong. The more people who get the right information, the better. Now if we could just get every TD in the world to lurk...(I know we'd have to go to a moderated newsgroup, but it would be worth it) Craig ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 8:24 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) At 01:16 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >I believe this is why Grattan indicated that he was communicating the >material from Lille to the appropriate National and Zonal organisations >first, before sharing it with BLML. In other words, it was first >disseminated through channels, then disseminated here as well for those of >us who have expressed interest. Is this not as it should be? It is just as it should be; if only it were! In the ACBL, the "channels" seem to reach only as far as the TDs who work at the NABCs. A few lower-level TDs will learn of the communication by word of mouth, but sometimes that takes on the aspect of a game of Rumor. We'll be lucky if "the word" reaches half the TDs in North America before the 2007 laws come out. ## Unfortunately more true than desireable. There are many club TD's who still apply a 25% test for UI...and that's among the few that have any idea of what UI is!## From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 03:46:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:46:16 +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 DAA17758 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:46:10 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA28002 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA06868 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:50:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811201650.LAA06868@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 25b odds X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > 5) as an aside, if this is with screens, the example needs to be > adapted, as it was East who has been given the option, and South should > not be knowing that opponents are playing for -3IMPs maximum. Does everyone agree with this? I'd have thought both sides of the screen should know. If partner has limited our score to 40%, I think I'd like to know that before choosing a "top or bottom" action. And if I know, isn't my screenmate entitled to know as well? In what cases is it proper to inform players of a ruling on the other side of the screen? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 04:01:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 04:01:19 +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 EAA17811 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 04:01:13 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA28840 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA06894 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:05:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:05:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811201705.MAA06894@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > L93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all > powers assigned by these Laws to the Director..." Grattan has shed > additional light on the intended meaning of "all powers assigned... to the > Director"; what is needed, however, is some guidance as to the intended > meaning of "in adjudicating appeals". In particular, does it mean, as it > would seem to on superficial reading, that the committee "may exercise all > powers..." only in regard to matters which have properly reached them > through the appeals process, or does it give them carte blanche to exercise > those powers in any situation of their choosing? My superficial reading is that the committee cannot change the results at a different table. :-) And probably cannot change the results of a different board at the same table, although you can make a case to the contrary. I don't, however, see how you can limit the AC's scope within the board being appealed. Take a typical MI case. Perhaps the TD has neglected the UI implications of a wrong explanation or gotten the bridge judgment wrong about what the UI suggests. Surely we want the AC to fix that. Or suppose the AC finds additional MI relating to a different call? Or discovers that the play contained a revoke that nobody realized? The AC is expected to find the facts, and it's easy to imagine discovering new irregularities. Where do you set limits on which irregularities can be redressed? No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of time and effort. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 05:09:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:09:47 +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 FAA18118 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:09:40 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id NAA11400; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:13:56 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA18378; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811201813.NAA18378@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:13:53 -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 Hi-- I thought it might be worthwhile posting a short synopsis of part of the argument in this thread. Herman De Wael wrote: >> After all, the Law is still as it is written; The interpretation should >> still be thus : "did you think passing was a stupid mistake ?" then you >> can change it, if you want, and play for Av-. Herman De Wael wrote: >>Let's all stop trying to find out if something is a silly mistake or not >>and just allow a player to decide for himself if the mistake is stupid >>enough to warrant playing for Av-. David Stevenson responded (and Jean-Pierre Rocafort, similarly): >> Unfortunately that means that you are saying we should ignore the >>decision of the WBFLC, and that cannot be right. >> >> Because of that decision we are instructed only to allow L25B in the >>case of a "stupid mistake". We thus have to interpret that instruction, >>and that is what this thread is trying to do. Grant Sterling countered: >> But don't you see, David, that's exactly what Herman is proposing. >>He is proposing that we determine whether a stupid mistake has occurred by >>asking the player 'would you really prefer to play for Av- rather than >>play your contract?', and if he says 'yes' we take his word that he made a >>stupid mistake. That may not be a very scientific method, but at least it >>allows for conclusive judgements. :) But David Stevenson came back with an example which is clearly a "change of mind", not a correction of a stupid mistake: >> I see what you mean. I bid 7NT, LHO reaches with a glint in his eye >>for the double card, and you want to let me change my call because now I >>know there is an ace missing - and 40% in 6NT making is definitely going >>to be an improvement on 7NT-1! Now, Herman De Wael establishes a new set of guidelines: >>All bridge actions are the result of three processes : >>1- gathering of information : noticing the bidding = external >>2- processing the information, making a judgment = internal >>3- acting upon the information : bid out the appropriate contract and >>putting that card on the table = external >> >>We may say that all mistakes in 1 and 3 are correctable, those in 2 are >>not. I would like to note that I think these guidelines seem pretty good, and seem to do a good job in resolving many of the test cases brought up in this thread in a rational manner, as well as being in accordance with the Lille interpretation. However, this does seem to be a modification of HDW's original view: he would originally have allowed a correction in DS's test case, but does not do so now. --David Metcalf (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) For reference, Herman's complete argument follows: Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > But don't you see, David, that's exactly what Herman is proposing. >>> >He is proposing that we determine whether a stupid mistake has occurred by >>> >asking the player 'would you really prefer to play for Av- rather than >>> >play your contract?', and if he says 'yes' we take his word that he made a >>> >stupid mistake. That may not be a very scientific method, but at least it >>> >allows for conclusive judgements. :) >>> >>> I see what you mean. I bid 7NT, LHO reaches with a glint in his eye >>> for the double card, and you want to let me change my call because now I >>> know there is an ace missing - and 40% in 6NT making is definitely going >>> to be an improvement on 7NT-1! >>> >>> I believe the interpretation from Lille was specifically to stop this >>> which appears to be legal under the Law book. Do you want this to be >>> legal? >>> >> >>Take two stories : >> >>4NT pass 5Di pass >>oh, 2 aces out, let's stay in 5 >>pass >>oops, I forgot to correct to the correct trump suit. >> >>and >> >>4NT pass 5Di pass >>oh, 1 ace out of 5, and I have 3, that makes 4 aces, so let's bid the >>grand >>7Sp >>oops, I forgot that there should be 5 aces. >> >>Intuitively, I would allow L25B in the first example, not in the second. >> >>But we need to find a difference among them. >> >>Let's try : >> >>In both cases, the player was in possession of all the correct >>information. >> >>In both cases, nothing happened to make him change the information in >>his possession (we would almost certainly rule differently if meanwhile >>a question was asked, even to the player himself, and he now realises >>that he made a mistake in system). >> >>In both cases, he has made a bidding judgment. In the first one, to >>stay out of slam, in the second to go to the grand. >> >>In both cases, he has made a call. >> >>In both cases, he now finds his partnership are in a contract. >> >>In both cases, he now realises this contract will almost certainly >>result in a bottom. >> >>In both cases, he wants to change that call. >> >>There is one difference though : >> >>In the first case, he wants to change his call to one which corresponds >>to the bridge judgment he has made. >>In the second case, he wants to change his call to one corresponding to >>a different bridge judgment (not play the grand but the small slam). >> >>That is what is meant with : change of mind - when in possession of the >>same information, make a different bridge judgment. >>In the second case, the bridge judgment was stupid. >>In the first case, the action stupidly did not conform to the judgment. >> >>Does that help with the unseen 1Cl opening ? Not yet. >> >>Let's try the same with two sets of examples : >> >> (1Cl) pass >>I have no opening values, so >>pass >>oops, my partner has opened a strong club, this is a silly contract. >> >>or >> >> 1Cl pass >>I have 6 points and 5 spades, so >>1Sp >>oops, we are playing strong club, Squeeze style, and this promises Game >>values and says nothing about spades, we will almost certainly land in a >>silly game contract. >> >>Intuitively, I would allow L25B in the first case and not in the second. >> >>Now : >> >>In both cases the player made a bidding judgment. >> >>In both cases this judgment was sound. >> >>In both cases, the player now realises some changed information, making >>that bidding judgment irrelevant. >> >>In both cases, player wants to change his call, now making a new bidding >>judgment, but without calling the previous one silly. >> >>In both cases, the player can clearly see his not changing the bidding >>will result in a silly contract and playing for Av- will be to his >>benefit. >> >>In both cases, the player has made a silly mistake. >> >>So where is the difference here ? >> >>In the first case, the mistake is external. Player did not take in the >>correct situation, for whatever reason. >>In the second case, the mistake is internal. Player forgot his system. >> >>This is in fact the same distinction as in the first case. >>Not bidding 5Sp may be considered an external mistake. >>Miscounting the number of Aces may be considered an internal mistake. >> >>All bridge actions are the result of three processes : >>1- gathering of information : noticing the bidding = external >>2- processing the information, making a judgment = internal >>3- acting upon the information : bid out the appropriate contract and >>putting that card on the table = external >> >>We may say that all mistakes in 1 and 3 are correctable, those in 2 are >>not. >> >>But again, we must draw the line somewhere. >> >>Gathering information = taking 13 cards, what if you take only 12 ? >>Making the judgment = deciding not to go to slam, but doesn't that >>include the decision of bidding the final contract ? >> >>In contrast to some who don't like this Law, and want to scrap L25B >>altogether, I do like the new version, but would prefer doing away with >>the distinction altogether. After all, if a player is quick enough to >>realise he has made a mistake (even in the counting of his aces), then >>why not let him benefit from the same provisions ? >> >>But we're stuck with L25B as well as the interpretation and I would >>propose to try and draw the lines somewhere, and rather stop the >>philosofical discussions (of which I am the most guilty) >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 05:09:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:09:41 +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 FAA18110 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:09:31 +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 NAA04183 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:28:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120131543.00728460@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:15:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA (by way of Eric Landau ) Subject: REDIRECTED by request of sender: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Objet: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) At 01:16 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >I believe this is why Grattan indicated that he was communicating the >material from Lille to the appropriate National and Zonal organisations >first, before sharing it with BLML. In other words, it was first >disseminated through channels, then disseminated here as well for those of >us who have expressed interest. Is this not as it should be? It is just as it should be; if only it were! In the ACBL, the "channels" seem to reach only as far as the TDs who work at the NABCs. A few lower-level TDs will learn of the communication by word of mouth, but sometimes that takes on the aspect of a game of Rumor. We'll be lucky if "the word" reaches half the TDs in North America before the 2007 laws come out. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com [Laval Dubreuil] You can imagine the lack of information at the club director level.... I hear all sorts of horrors around me from many clubs directors (and TD also) but can not blame them totaly cause I know they receive no information nor formation from ACBL. I consider I am lucky to have BLML to improve my knoledge of Laws and to test some rulings. But I know my relations with some directors will become heavy because players use to check rulings with more than one and our intrepretation of Laws will become more and more different. Imagine the reaction when I will first allow a change of "stupid bid" with Law 25B and will not on a change of mind as I understand now from BLML. Most club directors (and TD) do not realy apply the new Law 25B thinking this Ave- affair is too much complicated. They had never, and and will not in a near future I think, heard about the much more complex interpretation of Law 25B by WBFLC. If nothing is done by local authorities, BLML will create a ghetto... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 05:21:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:21:55 +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 FAA18154 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:21:45 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id NAA12293; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:26:02 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA18558; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:25:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu> Subject: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:25:59 -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 Hi-- Another question on L25: The header for L25B (I know the headers are not part of the laws, but that does not mean they arent worth mentioning) refers to "*delayed* or purposeful correction". In the ACBL, I have seen situations where there was a significant delay between error and correction, but during that delay it was evident that the person "wasnt thinking about the bid", and so the auction was allowed to be corrected per L25A, since this was "without pause for thought." Were these rulings correct? If so, what then would be the difference between a L25A correction after a delay, and a L25B correction? When it takes some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems to me that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it is wrong does not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" sense of the word. An example (using bidding boxes, but without screens): Player A opened 1C. In the ensuing auction the expert pair agreed on clubs as trump and were bidding toward slam. Along the way they implied that they were missing 1st round heart control, so there was no possibility of grand slam. Finally the opener leapt to 6D (intending to pull the 6C card), and looked away, thinking the auction would be over. Diamonds had never been bid naturally. The next player passed, and responder began to consider what this could possibly show. After 20 seconds or so, opener turned back and saw her mistake. The director allowed a correction under L25A. --David Metcalf (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 05:22:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:22:27 +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 FAA18170 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:22:20 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgvGJ-0005xB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:26:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:23:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120084819.00724908@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19981120084819.00724908@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:01 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Steve wrote: > >After reading and considering our discussion, I've come to the conclusion >that Herman's approach is the right way to go, at least unless and until we >get further clarification from the WBFLC. Steve gets his "type 1" >interpretation, and I get a resolution to my concern that the new >interpretation might lead me to make rulings very much different from what >non-BLML (ACBL) TDs are likely make based solely on the wording of TFLB. >Herman's position seems to boil down to: (a) The determination as to >whether a player's call is a "stupid mistake" is made by the player >himself. (b) A willingness to play on for a maximum of A- is an ipso facto >determination that he judges himself to have made a stupid mistake. > > IMO no other method works, given that we cannot look at the hands. I am convinced this is the only possible solution. 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 Nov 21 05:22:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:22:34 +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 FAA18176 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:22:24 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgvGJ-0001UB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:26:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:21:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 25b odds In-Reply-To: <199811201650.LAA06868@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199811201650.LAA06868@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Herman De Wael >> 5) as an aside, if this is with screens, the example needs to be >> adapted, as it was East who has been given the option, and South should >> not be knowing that opponents are playing for -3IMPs maximum. > >Does everyone agree with this? I'd have thought both sides of the >screen should know. If partner has limited our score to 40%, I think >I'd like to know that before choosing a "top or bottom" action. And >if I know, isn't my screenmate entitled to know as well? > >In what cases is it proper to inform players of a ruling on the other >side of the screen? One major consideration is that the other side of the screen already know that there's a problem - after all a purple jacketed TD has just pitched up (we wear bright crimson jackets in the UK so people can take a pot shot at us more easily) and there's been total mayhem, the trolleys been half way slid back and then disappeared again etc etc. IMO it's always best to tell everyone everything that doesn't create clear UI. 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 Nov 21 05:36:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:36:15 +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 FAA18218 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:36:05 +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 NAA05160 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:55:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981120134223.006c7e90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:42:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199811201705.MAA06894@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >My superficial reading is that the committee cannot change the results >at a different table. :-) And probably cannot change the results of >a different board at the same table, although you can make a case to >the contrary. > >I don't, however, see how you can limit the AC's scope within the board >being appealed. Take a typical MI case. Perhaps the TD has neglected >the UI implications of a wrong explanation or gotten the bridge >judgment wrong about what the UI suggests. Surely we want the AC to >fix that. Or suppose the AC finds additional MI relating to a >different call? Or discovers that the play contained a revoke that >nobody realized? The AC is expected to find the facts, and it's easy >to imagine discovering new irregularities. Where do you set limits on >which irregularities can be redressed? > >No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't >be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of >course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of >time and effort. That works within the context of equity adjudications, which perforce relate to a particular deal. But PPs present a whole different context, which does not, in general, relate to any specific deal (consider the examples in the "laundry list" in L90B), so I don't think that the relationship of the PP to the specific deal being adjudicated in equity should matter. Pair X gives pair Y MI on board #3. Pair Y reaches an inferior contract, and claims that this was due to the MI. TD rules that it was not; result stands; pair Y appeals. AC finds that the MI didn't affect the result, and upholds the TD's ruling. The AC learns that on board #3, pair X actually committed three separate procedural violations: (1) they blatantly misdescribed their agreements (the original MI), (2) they were overheard at several nearby tables discussing the board, and (3) they boxed several cards before passing the board. Can the AC now give PPs for these violations? It seems to me (by Occam's razor, if nothing else) that the answer should be either (a) yes or (b) no, not (c) they can give a PP for (1), because it feels like it's somehow related to the original appeal for equity adjudication, but not for (2) or (3), because they 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 Nov 21 05:44:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:44:27 +1100 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 FAA18250 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 05:44:21 +1100 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 NAA17206 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:48:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:48:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811201848.NAA03705@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199811201705.MAA06894@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:05:43 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > I don't, however, see how you can limit the AC's scope within the board > being appealed. Take a typical MI case. Perhaps the TD has neglected > the UI implications of a wrong explanation or gotten the bridge > judgment wrong about what the UI suggests. Surely we want the AC to > fix that. Or suppose the AC finds additional MI relating to a > different call? Or discovers that the play contained a revoke that > nobody realized? The AC is expected to find the facts, and it's easy > to imagine discovering new irregularities. Where do you set limits on > which irregularities can be redressed? > No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't > be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of > course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of > time and effort. However, if the AC imposes a procedural penalty which the TD didn't impose for the same facts, it is overruling the TD on a point of law, which it seems should not be allowed without the TD's consent. If the AC finds facts which the TD did not find, it is not overruling the TD on a point of law. -- 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 Nov 21 06:02:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:02:41 +1100 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.1.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18296 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:02:35 +1100 Received: from ivillage.ivillage.com (hil-qbu-ppu-vty43.as.wcom.net [209.154.55.43]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA10243 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:18:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19981120124920.0098f100@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:06:28 -0600 To: From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <365560CF.57E473FC@village.uunet.be> References: <199811191615.KAA18514@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Input from a Flight C (ACBL) player and wannabe director: [first, 4NT example snipped] >In the first case, he wants to change his call to one which corresponds >to the bridge judgment he has made. >In the second case, he wants to change his call to one corresponding to >a different bridge judgment (not play the grand but the small slam). > >That is what is meant with : change of mind - when in possession of the >same information, make a different bridge judgment. >In the second case, the bridge judgment was stupid. >In the first case, the action stupidly did not conform to the judgment. [second, strong-1C example snipped] >In the first case, the mistake is external. Player did not take in the >correct situation, for whatever reason. >In the second case, the mistake is internal. Player forgot his system. > >This is in fact the same distinction as in the first case. >Not bidding 5Sp may be considered an external mistake. >Miscounting the number of Aces may be considered an internal mistake. I'm not sure I agree. In the second example, first case, the player didn't look closely to make sure what his partner's call was. IMHO that's like miscounting one's aces; not exactly an internal mistake, but not in the same class as passing a cue-bid. I've never dealt with screens so I don't feel confident commenting on the situation that prompted this thread. My gut reaction, though, is that the player who didn't see the 1C card also didn't see a Pass card and so had a responsibility, to himself at least, to verify what his partner's call was. His not doing so was inattention. I wonder whether the "careless or inferior vs. irrational" distinction has a place here. Passing a Blackwood response rather than correcting to 5S is not only careless but irrational; not seeing partner's bid, or forgetting the system, or overlooking an ace, is simply careless. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 06:53:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:53:26 +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 GAA18393 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:53:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgwfq-00064E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:56:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:56:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Recap from my post to the 25b odds article, now more general : > >How do we calculate an artificial adjusted score in team play, and in >knock-out team play ? > >Let's start another thread on that one, if you like ! > >Who would like ? L86A say that an ArtAS is +3 or -3 imps. This applies to any form of teams, and I see no difficulty in applying it when the scores are balanced. Suppose they are not balanced? Both sides get average minus, or one side get an AssAS and the other an ArtAS [*snarl*]. It is difficult to see a problem with this if it is not KO teams: scores do not need to be balanced. I can tell you TBW's view from some time ago [unsigned, but when Kaplan was still alive]. I quoted L86B, and said that I thought the word "assigns" should be "awards". They said that it did not make any difference! LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play When the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each contestant's score on the board is calculated separately. The average of the two scores is then assigned to both contestants. In fact, I think the general interpretation is to treat L86B as though "assigns" means "awards". Thus I would use it even when one or both score is an Artificially Assigned one. If anyone has missed the delicate problem in the wording, it is this. L12C1 gives situations where an Artificial Score is awarded by the TD: L12C2 gives situations where an Assigned Score is awarded by the TD, ie a Score is Assigned by the TD. In theory since L86B uses assigns rather than awards, it should not apply to L12C1 [though one wonders why the reference to L12C is not to L12C2 if that is the case]. I believe we should follow commonsense and TBW and use L86B. Now, before HDW and others get going, I know that there is a legal case for not using this Law, and allowing non-balancing results [both sides have won, or lost]. I am merely saying that I do not believe we should do that. -- 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 Nov 21 07:23:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:23:56 +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 HAA18471 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:23:51 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA01168 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:27:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.39) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001145; Fri Nov 20 14:27:25 1998 Received: by har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:26:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:16:16 -0500 Encoding: 48 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This may raise the question anew though whther or not we MAY look at the hands. The EBL practice does not seem to be universal, and may not be clearly mandated by Law. If not, would this be a circumstance for those TDs in areas that do not forbid doing so to look at the hands as an aid to rendering a correct judgement? The difference between an absurd and A- result might outweigh any impact of imparting UI. Should you rule "no correction" and a top-bottom stands, surely the UI has no impact. And the information from the change of call might itself greatly outweigh an UI imparted through the director's inspection in cases where a change is allowed. Craig ---------- From: John (MadDog) Probst[SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 1:23 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In article <3.0.1.32.19981120084819.00724908@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:01 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Steve wrote: > >After reading and considering our discussion, I've come to the conclusion >that Herman's approach is the right way to go, at least unless and until we >get further clarification from the WBFLC. Steve gets his "type 1" >interpretation, and I get a resolution to my concern that the new >interpretation might lead me to make rulings very much different from what >non-BLML (ACBL) TDs are likely make based solely on the wording of TFLB. >Herman's position seems to boil down to: (a) The determination as to >whether a player's call is a "stupid mistake" is made by the player >himself. (b) A willingness to play on for a maximum of A- is an ipso facto >determination that he judges himself to have made a stupid mistake. > > IMO no other method works, given that we cannot look at the hands. I am convinced this is the only possible solution. 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 Nov 21 08:13:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:13:17 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18582 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:13:12 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981120211729.WREW3121.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:17:29 -0800 Message-ID: <3655DD1D.E860A88@home.com> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:20:29 -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: Procedural Penalties References: <199811201705.MAA06894@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't > be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of > course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of > time and effort. Given this, how can one *not* support the use/application of L12C3, irrespective of jurisdiction?? :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 08:26:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:26:55 +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 IAA18621 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:26:49 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA24671 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA07106 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811202131.QAA07106@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Now, before HDW and others get going, I know that there is a legal > case for not using [L86B], and allowing non-balancing results [both > sides have won, or lost]. I am merely saying that I do not believe we > should do that. As I understand it, the ACBL does not use L86B in the specific case where the non-balancing results are caused by a PP (or DP, I assume). If a PP causes both sides to lose, the prescribed tie-break procedures take effect. (Usually that means play a few more boards). In other cases, L86B is used as we would expect. Can anyone confirm or refute my understanding? I've not actually seen this regulation in writing. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 08:27:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:27:51 +1100 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 IAA18635 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:27:45 +1100 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 PAA10900 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:31:57 -0600 (CST) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA23039 ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:31:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:31:56 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 25b odds Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: > L25b odds > Auction vul ALL K.O. match > S W N E > 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) > 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) > ?? > south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. > What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? > > We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. > 7H = is + 13 imps > 7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2 > The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) = (.65*7) You missed one small point. Assume there is a 35% play for 13 tricks. Then bidding 7 gives you an expected score of zero, as you have calculated. However, bidding 6 gives you a better score of +1.5 IMPs. The break-even point occurs when the play for 13 tricks has a 42.5% chance. This assumes that the above figure of +1.5 is not rounded to either +1 or +2. What do regulations say about rounding this half-an-IMP? I said "You missed one small point." Perhaps I should have said you missed one-and-a-half points. :-) -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 08:58:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:58:54 +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 IAA18721 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:58:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgydM-0006tg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:46:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) References: <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >This may raise the question anew though whther or not we MAY look at the >hands. The EBL practice does not seem to be universal, and may not be >clearly mandated by Law. If not, would this be a circumstance for those TDs >in areas that do not forbid doing so to look at the hands as an aid to >rendering a correct judgement? > The difference between an absurd and A- result might outweigh any >impact of imparting UI. Should you rule "no correction" and a top-bottom >stands, surely the UI has no impact. And the information from the change of >call might itself greatly outweigh an UI imparted through the director's >inspection in cases where a change is allowed. The reason for not looking at a hand is not solely UI considerations. Let me try to construct an example [very easy with other infractions]. Suppose that the bidding goes 1H 1S 4D 4S; 4NT P 5D P; P. Now the player wished to change his last pass. His hand is Qx AQJx KQT98x Q Are you going to allow it? Immediately you look at his hand you suddenly realise that you need to know what 4D means, what is going on, why he opened 1H, and so on. The only way to make a sensible judgement once you have looked at his hand is to ask a number of questions about methods, then go away, probably consult, certainly digest the implications, and then rule. In effect, what you are trying to do is to do what TDs do in hesitation situations, but instead of taking half an hour to rule, you have to do it instantly. Please convince me that in jurisdictions where the TD looks at the hand he will not now say "A-A+: next board"? It is not a question of whether your authority allows it: it is sloppy directing, and a TD who is going to do a good job *must* *not* look at the hands, whatever his colleagues may do and his authority may advise. -- 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 Nov 21 08:59:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:59:22 +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 IAA18736 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:59:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgydM-0006te-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:33:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25b odds References: <199811201650.LAA06868@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811201650.LAA06868@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> 5) as an aside, if this is with screens, the example needs to be >> adapted, as it was East who has been given the option, and South should >> not be knowing that opponents are playing for -3IMPs maximum. > >Does everyone agree with this? I'd have thought both sides of the >screen should know. If partner has limited our score to 40%, I think >I'd like to know that before choosing a "top or bottom" action. And >if I know, isn't my screenmate entitled to know as well? > >In what cases is it proper to inform players of a ruling on the other >side of the screen? In nearly every case, I should think. Anyway, if you are playing for 40% then you must be told. In the example given certainly South must be told that he is playing for -3 imps. -- 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 Nov 21 08:59:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:59:22 +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 IAA18729 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:59:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgydP-0006th-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:49:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties References: <199811201705.MAA06894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19981120134223.006c7e90@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120134223.006c7e90@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:05 PM 11/20/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >>No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't >>be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of >>course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of >>time and effort. >Pair X gives pair Y MI on board #3. Pair Y reaches an inferior contract, >and claims that this was due to the MI. TD rules that it was not; result >stands; pair Y appeals. AC finds that the MI didn't affect the result, and >upholds the TD's ruling. The AC learns that on board #3, pair X actually >committed three separate procedural violations: (1) they blatantly >misdescribed their agreements (the original MI), (2) they were overheard at >several nearby tables discussing the board, and (3) they boxed several >cards before passing the board. > >Can the AC now give PPs for these violations? It seems to me (by Occam's >razor, if nothing else) that the answer should be either (a) yes or (b) no, >not (c) they can give a PP for (1), because it feels like it's somehow >related to the original appeal for equity adjudication, but not for (2) or >(3), because they don't. In practical terms, once an AC is given a board to look at which four players have played, then I believe they can consider that board at that table with all its ramifications. I would be happy with PPs for all these items. -- 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 Nov 21 09:03:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:03:58 +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 IAA18722 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:58:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgydM-0006ti-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:53:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) References: <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: >Hi-- > >Another question on L25: > >The header for L25B (I know the headers are not part of the laws, but >that does not mean they arent worth mentioning) refers to "*delayed* >or purposeful correction". > >In the ACBL, I have seen situations where there was a significant >delay between error and correction, but during that delay it was >evident that the person "wasnt thinking about the bid", and so the >auction was allowed to be corrected per L25A, since this was "without >pause for thought." > >Were these rulings correct? If so, what then would be the difference between >a L25A correction after a delay, and a L25B correction? When it takes >some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems >to me that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it >is wrong does not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" >sense of the word. > >An example (using bidding boxes, but without screens): Player A opened 1C. >In the ensuing auction the expert pair agreed on clubs as trump and were >bidding toward slam. Along the way they implied that they were missing 1st >round heart control, so there was no possibility of grand slam. Finally the >opener leapt to 6D (intending to pull the 6C card), and looked away, thinking >the auction would be over. Diamonds had never been bid naturally. The next >player passed, and responder began to consider what this could possibly show. >After 20 seconds or so, opener turned back and saw her mistake. The director >allowed a correction under L25A. This is a normal ruling. The "without pause for thought" is interpreted as being from the moment of realisation of the error. In this case the question is whether she paused for thought after turning back and seeing her mistake. -- 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 Nov 21 09:15:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:15:45 +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 JAA18843 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:15:40 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA25766 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA07169 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:20:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:20:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811202220.RAA07169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > However, if the AC imposes a procedural penalty which the TD didn't > impose for the same facts, it is overruling the TD on a point of law, > which it seems should not be allowed without the TD's consent. I don't think I necessarily agree with this. Perhaps the AC disagrees with the TD's bridge judgment about the seriousness of the offense or the experience level of the offender. (Or are those "different facts?") I think the only problem is where the AC wants to assign a PP for reasons that are wholly improper under the Laws. > If the > AC finds facts which the TD did not find, it is not overruling the TD on > a point of law. Yes. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 10:02:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:02:41 +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 KAA19006 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:02:34 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:05:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp19-90.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.90] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:05:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36567571.64C9@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:10:25 -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: 25b odds References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Barry Wolk wrote: >Claude Dadoun wrote: > L25b odds > Auction vul ALL K.O. match > S W N E > 1H 1S 4H pass/4S (allowed by TD EW play for -3imp) > 4NT 5H (2 aces and no HK) > ?? > south knows he will make 12 tricks for sure and be may 13. > What are the odds for bidding 7H in K.O. match? > > We suppose than the other room will bid 6H. > 7H = is + 13 imps > 7H-1 is - 7 imps (-17 + 3)/2 > The odds to bid 7H now are 35 % (.35*13) = (.65*7) > > You missed one small point. Assume there is a 35% play for 13 tricks. > Then bidding 7 gives you an expected score of zero, as you have > calculated. However, bidding 6 gives you a better score of +1.5 IMPs. > > The break-even point occurs when the play for 13 tricks has a 42.5% > chance. This assumes that the above figure of +1.5 is not rounded to > either +1 or +2. What do regulations say about rounding this half-an-IMP? > > I said "You missed one small point." Perhaps I should have said you > missed one-and-a-half points. :-) True, (of course) I forgot the 3 imps bidding 6H. We do not need to look for rounding the half-an-imp. We keep it and it will avoid (may be) a tie. Thank you, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 10:15:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:15:42 +1100 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 KAA19026 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:15:35 +1100 Received: from pe6s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.231] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zgzq9-0004UW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:19:50 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:21:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01be14dc$78e22600$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: Brian Baresch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 20, 1998 7:40 PM Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) >Input from a Flight C (ACBL) player and wannabe director: > >[first, 4NT example snipped] > >>In the first case, he wants to change his call to one which corresponds >>to the bridge judgment he has made. >>In the second case, he wants to change his call to one corresponding to >>a different bridge judgment (not play the grand but the small slam). >> >>That is what is meant with : change of mind - when in possession of the >>same information, make a different bridge judgment. >>In the second case, the bridge judgment was stupid. >>In the first case, the action stupidly did not conform to the judgment. > >[second, strong-1C example snipped] > >>In the first case, the mistake is external. Player did not take in the >>correct situation, for whatever reason. >>In the second case, the mistake is internal. Player forgot his system. >> >>This is in fact the same distinction as in the first case. >>Not bidding 5Sp may be considered an external mistake. >>Miscounting the number of Aces may be considered an internal mistake. > >I'm not sure I agree. In the second example, first case, the player didn't >look closely to make sure what his partner's call was. IMHO that's like >miscounting one's aces; not exactly an internal mistake, but not in the >same class as passing a cue-bid. > >I've never dealt with screens so I don't feel confident commenting on the >situation that prompted this thread. My gut reaction, though, is that the >player who didn't see the 1C card also didn't see a Pass card and so had a >responsibility, to himself at least, to verify what his partner's call was. >His not doing so was inattention. > >I wonder whether the "careless or inferior vs. irrational" distinction has >a place here. Passing a Blackwood response rather than correcting to 5S is >not only careless but irrational; not seeing partner's bid, or forgetting >the system, or overlooking an ace, is simply careless. > >Best regards, > >Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com >Lawrence, Kansas, USA >Editing, writing, proofreading Hello Brian, and welcome, This is like a breath of fresh air! As you so ably pointed out, we already have the concept "careless or inferior for the standard of player involved" or "irrational". We know how to adjudje thes different concepts. Certainly the use of the word "Stupid" has confused us. Given the ability to refuse the change of call under L25B if it is adjudged careless or inferior, but to allow the change if it is irrational, implying that rationale has been considered but not applied (as dictated by WBFLC in Lille by stipulating "after thought"), we will I suspect find this law much easier to apply. We now have the problem however that in applying "careless" and "irrational" in the past, we were ruling on such things as claims, where we had the cards to see. Ruling on Law25, we are in the position of applying a Law. We should not be looking at the cards, as many have pointed out. What questions would you ask, Brian, to be able to decide "Careless" or "Irrational"? If we can get on the outside of this one, I think we are a lot nearer the intention of the interpretation than we have been. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 13:00:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:00:56 +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 NAA19312 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:00:50 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zh2Q5-0003Pv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:05:06 +0000 Message-ID: <+sqO3CBP+hV2EwcL@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:03:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) In-Reply-To: <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu>, David Metcalf writes >Hi-- > >Another question on L25: > >The header for L25B (I know the headers are not part of the laws, but >that does not mean they arent worth mentioning) refers to "*delayed* >or purposeful correction". > >In the ACBL, I have seen situations where there was a significant >delay between error and correction, but during that delay it was >evident that the person "wasnt thinking about the bid", and so the >auction was allowed to be corrected per L25A, since this was "without >pause for thought." > >Were these rulings correct? If so, what then would be the difference between >a L25A correction after a delay, and a L25B correction? When it takes >some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems >to me that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it >is wrong does not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" >sense of the word. > >An example (using bidding boxes, but without screens): Player A opened 1C. >In the ensuing auction the expert pair agreed on clubs as trump and were >bidding toward slam. Along the way they implied that they were missing 1st >round heart control, so there was no possibility of grand slam. Finally the >opener leapt to 6D (intending to pull the 6C card), and looked away, thinking >the auction would be over. Diamonds had never been bid naturally. The next >player passed, and responder began to consider what this could possibly show. >After 20 seconds or so, opener turned back and saw her mistake. The director >allowed a correction under L25A. > >--David Metcalf (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) > Completely correct in my opinion. The bid on the table is not the bid which was intended to be made and the player has endeavoured to change it without pause for thought. (No pause for thought, long pause for considering getting legover with chick at table 11 however). 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 Nov 21 20:49:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:49:05 +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 UAA19782 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:48:59 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-132.uunet.be [194.7.14.132]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA16797 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:53:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <365687FF.8AB6EF8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:29:35 +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: 25b odds References: <36567571.64C9@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claude Dadoun wrote: > > >Barry Wolk wrote: > > > > You missed one small point. Assume there is a 35% play for 13 tricks. > > Then bidding 7 gives you an expected score of zero, as you have > > calculated. However, bidding 6 gives you a better score of +1.5 IMPs. > > > > The break-even point occurs when the play for 13 tricks has a 42.5% > > chance. This assumes that the above figure of +1.5 is not rounded to > > either +1 or +2. What do regulations say about rounding this half-an-IMP? > > > > I said "You missed one small point." Perhaps I should have said you > > missed one-and-a-half points. :-) > > True, (of course) > I forgot the 3 imps bidding 6H. > We do not need to look for rounding the half-an-imp. > We keep it and it will avoid (may be) a tie. > Not exactly true. Usually, if there is a 35% play for 13 tricks, there is also the same 35% chance of making 13 tricks in small slam. (not always, but usually). But the same cards lie at the other table, so if they play 6H, they have the same chance of making 13 tricks. Perhaps there is only one line, which succeeds 35% of the time, in which case it will do so at both tables (net result 0 IMP), perhaps there are two possible lines, in which case the chance of a gain of 3IMPs is equal to the chance of a loss of 3 IMPs, anyway net gain again 0. So the break-even does remain at 35% ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 21 20:49:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:49:16 +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 UAA19789 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:49:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-132.uunet.be [194.7.14.132]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA16818 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:53:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36568899.66CBCD1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:32:09 +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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Recap from my post to the 25b odds article, now more general : > > > >How do we calculate an artificial adjusted score in team play, and in > >knock-out team play ? > > > >Let's start another thread on that one, if you like ! > > > >Who would like ? > > L86A say that an ArtAS is +3 or -3 imps. This applies to any form of > teams, and I see no difficulty in applying it when the scores are > balanced. > (discussion on non-balanced skipped - completely in agreement there) My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 02:11:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:11:04 +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 CAA22822 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:10:57 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcius.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.220]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08621 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:15:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981121101454.006ae270@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:14:54 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: >++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that >established in Law 81C6. > A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of >the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the >table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to >the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature and, as can be educed from the >wording of the law, addresses the question of inconvenience caused more >generally to other players or to the conduct and progress of the event by >the inattention, carelessness or negligence, of a player at fault. This is >the point that Marvin French has not absorbed when he seeks to argue that >90B is restrictive on the powers in 90A; he fails to pick up the fact that >the procedural penalty targets different concerns from the penalty >provisions in the laws of which 90A makes mention, and presents a >separate and parallel issue. It is thus not to be anticipated that the >examples in 90B will include matters dealt with by the basic laws. > Based on private conversations I've had with him, I believe Marvin's interest in this thread may have waned. But I think he would be pleasantly surprised by this analysis, which appears to be quite consistent with his previous arguments in this regard. Many of us are concerned with the following question: is it appropriate for an AC to assign a PP for an irregularity when the requisite conditions for redress under other provisions are not present, simply for the purpose of expressing their displeasure with the "offenders"? NS have some sort of hesitation sequence, N takes an action that could have been suggested, etc., but they end up too high and go down. TD rules no damage, since EW appear to have a pretty good score as a result. But EW appeal, claiming that they somehow might have gotten a still better score. The AC finds this argument to be baseless, but feel that "equity" demands that NS should be punished for the illegal bid by N. May they assign a PP for this? We think not. We agree with Grattan that the wording of 90a (and, we would add, the examples chosen to illustrate the use of a PP in 90b) makes clear that PP's are intended to meet a different type of concern than the penalties-for-redress defined elsewhere, and are not meant to extend the latter at the whim of an AC. As Grattan confirms, PP's are intended to punish behavior which interferes with the smooth conduct of the contest, above and beyond the actions in lower-numbered laws for which penalties are otherwise prescribed. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 04:01:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 04:01:02 +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 EAA22984 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 04:00:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zhGT7-0002AV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:05:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:35:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> <36568899.66CBCD1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36568899.66CBCD1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >Recap from my post to the 25b odds article, now more general : >> > >> >How do we calculate an artificial adjusted score in team play, and in >> >knock-out team play ? >> > >> >Let's start another thread on that one, if you like ! >> > >> >Who would like ? >> >> L86A say that an ArtAS is +3 or -3 imps. This applies to any form of >> teams, and I see no difficulty in applying it when the scores are >> balanced. >> > >(discussion on non-balanced skipped - completely in agreement there) > >My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the >result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? > I see what you mean. Unfortunately L86A disagrees with 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 Nov 22 04:52:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 04:52:43 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23112 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 04:52:36 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.218] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA16958; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:56:36 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3656FED5.DBC19239@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:56:37 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KRAllison@aol.com CC: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L79B References: <1d89718a.36499e00@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmmmmmm , not only in Euclidean .... I defined the WorldBridge geometry some years ago ----- Moving along any geodesic line : a) if you find decreasing values you'll meet the LHO - this is "LEFT". b) if you find increasing values you'll meet the RHO - this is "RIGHT" c) and - the most important - if you find imaginary values - there should be your FO (front opponent) , because in usual bridge world , there are only imaginary partners !!!!!!!!!! Dany KRAllison@aol.com wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL states: > > << Should that law not state that East is to North's left ? >> > > Yes, but only in Euclidean geometries. > > Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 05:04:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:04:01 +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 FAA23142 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:03:55 +1100 Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:06:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp18-69.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.69] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:06:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <365780EA.417@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:11:38 -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: 25b odds References: <36567571.64C9@wanadoo.fr> <365687FF.8AB6EF8@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Herman De Wael wrote: >So the break-even does remain at 35% ! >Barry Wolk wrote: >break-even point occurs when the play for 13 tricks has a 42.5% chance >what do regulations say about rounding this half-an-IMP? Bidding only 6H is 0 imp but the offending side play for AV- (3 imp) and your team get now a secure score of +1.5 imp. You need to count it so the break-even point is more than 35%. I think we can trust Barry. Sometimes in AC we want the same adjusted score for the both sides, and we start clever calculation (e.g many differents leads possible). In round robin, rounding exactly half-an-imp is usualy given to the non offending side before calculating victory points. Amicalement, Claude Dadoun. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 08:04:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:04:25 +1100 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.2.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23512 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:04:20 +1100 Received: from ivillage.ivillage.com (dal-qbu-zop-vty77.as.wcom.net [209.154.122.77]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28332 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:20:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19981121145732.00a63220@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:08:36 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <01be14dc$78e22600$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you, Anne, for your kind words. >We now have the problem however that in applying "careless" and >"irrational" in the past, we were ruling on such things as claims, where >we had the cards to see. >Ruling on Law25, we are in the position of applying a Law. We should not >be looking at the cards, as many have pointed out. What questions would >you ask, Brian, to be able to decide "Careless" or "Irrational"? >If we can get on the outside of this one, I think we are a lot nearer >the intention of the interpretation than we have been. I'm not sure; I suspect that most players asking for a change of call under L25B will have made a call that we can see is irrational from the auction (e.g. 1S=4D[splinter]=4NT=5D=P). If it's not clear from the auction we perhaps ought to ask as to the meaning of the auction, talking to the player away from the table if UI from explanations is a concern. I can envision cases where it's not clear whether the player made an irrational call or had a sudden change of mind ("Wait a minute, that's a pick-a-slam cuebid, not 7C to play!"). We'll just have to apply our judgment in those cases, which I suspect will be few. And if we judge wrong, well, it happens. Can't get them all right. Not a definitive answer, but the best I can come up with. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 09:15:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:15:04 +1100 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 JAA23646 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:14:57 +1100 Received: from p53s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.84] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zhLN5-0002ef-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:19:15 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Quiz Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:21:23 -0000 Message-ID: <01be159d$45fe6020$548793c3@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 Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player quiz on the Laws? It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it for tuition. Many thanks Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 22 13:25:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:25:53 +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 NAA23971 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:25:46 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zhPHn-0004EJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:30:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 02:21:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quiz References: <01be159d$45fe6020$548793c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be159d$45fe6020$548793c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player >quiz on the Laws? >It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it >for tuition. Well, there is one from the Canadian Bridge Federation on Niels' web site: quite an interesting one, with 25 questions. I cannot remember the address, but there is a link from the Laws section of my Bridgepage. -- 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 Nov 23 02:37:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 02:37:09 +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 CAA27328 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 02:37:02 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26051 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:41:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:41:19 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Unauthorised Information from Insufficient Bid? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Q AQxx Kx JTxxxx Pairs Vulnerable. You dealt The bidding proceeds (opponents silent) 1C 1S 2C 2H 3H 3H RHO accepts the second 3H bid and passes. Are you allowed to bid 4H? Does it make any difference if RHO says (before the director can be called) "You can correct that" and partner does so before the director arrives? -- 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 Mon Nov 23 06:43:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:43:15 +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 GAA27785 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:43:09 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16855 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08157 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:47:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:47:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811221947.OAA08157@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the > result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? The problem is that if, at one table, "no result can be obtained," there is nothing with which to compare the other table's result. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 23 06:50:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:50:07 +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 GAA27811 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:50:02 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA17322 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08172 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:54:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:54:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811221954.OAA08172@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > The AC finds this > argument [for score correction] > to be baseless, but feel that "equity" demands that NS should be > punished for the illegal bid by N. May they assign a PP for this? It seems legal to me, although it would be unwise in the circumstances you imply. But suppose an experienced player takes flagrant advantage of UI to bid a good contract, which happens to go down on an unlucky lie of the cards. Many of us think a PP for breach of L73C is in order, regardless of what the table result or score adjustment might be. (Many of us would impose the PP even if the contract makes and the score is adjusted; some would be reluctant.) Anyway, it seems to me that imposing a PP for anything listed under L90A is legal. The question is for which offenses it is wise. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 23 07:16:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:16:35 +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 HAA27874 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:16:29 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA17733 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA08228 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:20:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:20:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811222020.PAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L27 amendments? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I have changed the subject, since this thread has migrated far from its origin.] > From: David Stevenson > >TD can determine the likely sequence in which the IB was intended, and > >if there's a bid in the legal sequence that conveys at least the same > >information, then (27B1a, no penalty)." > > That was Bobby Wolff's idea, not mine. > My first idea was that whether the insufficient or the sufficient bid > is conventional or not should be irrelevant. In the absence of UI, I > would always allow the bid to be corrected to the next legal bid up. > > Usually people just tell me this won't work, without thought. Please > ignore your own first reaction, think about it, and then tell me what is > wrong with it. Ohhh... what an invitation! Actually, David's idea isn't terrible, but I think we can do better. The problem is that he wants to consider the bid instead of its meaning. Suppose we have 1S-1C... Well, we can probably guess the auction the insufficient bidder (IB'er) was imagining :-), and if 1C was vaguely natural and 2C is a sound natural overcall, there is no problem allowing a correction to 2C. But what if 1C was strong and artificial? Isn't the message about 16+ points (or whatever) a bit much? Even if 2C is natural but a light overcall, the information that overcaller has a full opening bid might be a problem. Sure, it's UI for partner, but who wants to the rules written to invite more UI disputes? Much better to bar offender's partner and let offender guess what to do. Now suppose we have 2NT-P-2H by a pair who play transfers over 2NT but not 1NT. If you look at IB'ers hand, you will discover he has a weakish hand with hearts. Why not let him make his normal transfer bid of 3D or even 4D? The withdrawn 2H bid might, I suppose, give some subtle piece of UI, but it's hard to imagine it will be important. Anyway, the underlying theme is clear. If we are sometimes going to bar offender's partner and sometimes not, the distinction ought to be made on the basis of the _information_ transmitted by the IB and not on the basis of the denomination or conventionality of the IB. Yes, there are problems with this approach, and I'm not sure it can be made simple enough to work in practice. It seems worth exploring, though, if we want to get rid of the "convention" part of L27. > If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down > version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as it is not > conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. This, on the other hand, really is terrible. Why should it matter if the replacement bid is conventional or not? (It _used_ to matter a great deal, but that was before the withdrawn bid became UI.) No, if you are going to make a distinction based on conventional or not, it's the IB that matters, not the replacement, but this whole approach opens at least two problem areas that we may not need to face. Of course none of this has anything to do with the rules as they are now; it merely explores what might be written in 2007. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 23 08:04:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:04:47 +1100 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 IAA27972 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:04:40 +1100 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 QAA05212 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 16:08:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 16:08:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811222108.QAA05303@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199811222020.PAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:20:46 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: L27 amendments? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > David Stevenson writes: >> If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down >> version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as it is not >> conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. > This, on the other hand, really is terrible. Why should it matter if > the replacement bid is conventional or not? (It _used_ to matter a > great deal, but that was before the withdrawn bid became UI.) The UI rule creates a serious problem, though. Suppose that RHO opens 1D, and you bid 1D. If you correct to 2D (Michaels) and partner is allowed to bid, he'll probably bid 4S or something similar, given that the withdrawn 1D is UI. The fact that 2D would have been conventional makes the penalty more severe than necessary; under the current rules, offender can bid 2D and bar partner. Under the proposed rull, offender must either pass, barring partner while imposing UI and lead penalties, or bid 3D, which eliminates the lead penalty at a serious risk. (I would eliminate any UI based on the unbarred meaning of the bid here, since the fact that partner will be barred is AI and this changes the meaning of the bid.) -- 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 Nov 23 12:48:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:48:41 +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 MAA28725 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:48:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zhlBG-00044W-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 01:52:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 01:36:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L27 amendments? References: <199811222020.PAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811222020.PAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >[I have changed the subject, since this thread has migrated far from its >origin.] > >> From: David Stevenson >> >TD can determine the likely sequence in which the IB was intended, and >> >if there's a bid in the legal sequence that conveys at least the same >> >information, then (27B1a, no penalty)." >> >> That was Bobby Wolff's idea, not mine. > >> My first idea was that whether the insufficient or the sufficient bid >> is conventional or not should be irrelevant. In the absence of UI, I >> would always allow the bid to be corrected to the next legal bid up. >> >> Usually people just tell me this won't work, without thought. Please >> ignore your own first reaction, think about it, and then tell me what is >> wrong with it. > >Ohhh... what an invitation! > >Actually, David's idea isn't terrible, but I think we can do better. >The problem is that he wants to consider the bid instead of its >meaning. > >Suppose we have 1S-1C... Well, we can probably guess the auction the >insufficient bidder (IB'er) was imagining :-) Absolutely not. This is not the case. Experience shows that when someone bids 1C over 1S he either meant to bid 2C over 1S, or 1C over a pass. Furthermore, a 1C overcall is a special case: there are usually three possibilities. 1D over 1S can be one of three things. >This, on the other hand, really is terrible. Why should it matter if >the replacement bid is conventional or not? (It _used_ to matter a >great deal, but that was before the withdrawn bid became UI.) No, if >you are going to make a distinction based on conventional or not, it's >the IB that matters, not the replacement, but this whole approach opens >at least two problem areas that we may not need to face. In most cases it does not matter whether the IB is conventional or not because *no-one knows* whether it is. -- 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 Nov 23 19:57:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:57:04 +1100 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 TAA29156 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:56:55 +1100 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 JAA05563 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:00:43 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 JAA07707 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:00:21 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981123090150.007f5500@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:01:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: UI for TD In-Reply-To: References: <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:46 20/11/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Craig Senior wrote: >>This may raise the question anew though whther or not we MAY look at the >>hands. The EBL practice does not seem to be universal, and may not be >>clearly mandated by Law. If not, would this be a circumstance for those TDs >>in areas that do not forbid doing so to look at the hands as an aid to >>rendering a correct judgement? > The reason for not looking at a hand is not solely UI considerations. >Let me try to construct an example [very easy with other infractions]. > > Suppose that the bidding goes 1H 1S 4D 4S; 4NT P 5D P; P. > > Now the player wished to change his last pass. > > His hand is > Qx > AQJx > KQT98x > Q > > Are you going to allow it? > > Immediately you look at his hand you suddenly realise that you need to >know what 4D means, what is going on, why he opened 1H, and so on. The >only way to make a sensible judgement once you have looked at his hand >is to ask a number of questions about methods, then go away, probably >consult, certainly digest the implications, and then rule. > > In effect, what you are trying to do is to do what TDs do in >hesitation situations, but instead of taking half an hour to rule, you >have to do it instantly. > I am still not convinced by the accuracy of never looking at hands, a practical rule I discovered on this mailing list. How bad can it be for TD to gather additional evidence and, maybe, choose not to use it for his ruling? In your example, TD may decide not to ask the player for too many questions in order to prevent UI, or only ask why he wants to change his bid, or investigate very deeply, or decide not to take the player's cards into account. Why not to be confident in TD's ability to deal at his best with UI problems? He can wait for the end of the play to explain his decision an not let anybody know whether it was influenced by the player's cards, or do you think it's actually impracticable? 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 Mon Nov 23 20:09:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:09:05 +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 UAA29187 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:08:59 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-138.uunet.be [194.7.14.138]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27792 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:13:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36591F93.59D9A7B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:40:51 +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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> <36568899.66CBCD1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the > >result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? > > > I see what you mean. Unfortunately L86A disagrees with you. > Does it ? I read L86A to mean that 40% equals -3IMPs. Nowhere in the book does it spell out how a score of 40% shall be compared to +1370 at some other table, in MP play. Nowhere does it say how -3IMPs is to be compared to +1370 at the other table in a team match. I firmly believe that the SO can make provisions for this, just as it does when stating that Neuberging is to be done for the other scores when an Av- is awarded at some table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 23 20:09:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:09:16 +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 UAA29193 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:09:06 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-138.uunet.be [194.7.14.138]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27813 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:13:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3659218F.5B984C64@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:49:19 +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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <199811221947.OAA08157@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 > > My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the > > result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? > > The problem is that if, at one table, "no result can be obtained," there > is nothing with which to compare the other table's result. That does not mean that the other table's result cannot be compared to some "average score", as determined by TD or AC. I would grant the TD the right to examine the other result, judge it either to be "normal" or "special" and either give the simple -3IMP OR another comparison, with automatic recourse to the AC if players object. Also, quite often nowadays, team matches are played with the same boards and a Butler average could be used to compare the other score to. Have I already told the list how I intend to calculate the result once such a "normal score" is obtained ? I would then, for the offending side, score it as if they have scored "normal" score minus 100 points, and for a Av+ receiver, as if it is that score +100 points. Example : say both sides are at fault and get Av-. The normal score is deemed +620, and the other table are at -200 (at 6 doubled down one). Now for NS, the calculation will be +520+200 = +720 = +12IMPs, while for EW, the calculation is -720-200=-920 = -14IMPs. The non-balancing effect is obviously due to the non-lineair IMP scales and is IMO a good thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 23 21:40:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:40:52 +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 VAA29353 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:40:45 +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 LAA24439 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:44:06 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199811231044.LAA24439@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, 23 Nov 1998 11:45:45 +0000 Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199811201825.NAA18558@csb.bu.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) wrote: > > Another question on L25: -- snip --- > An example (using bidding boxes, but without screens): Player A opened 1C. > In the ensuing auction the expert pair agreed on clubs as trump and were > bidding toward slam. Along the way they implied that they were missing 1st > round heart control, so there was no possibility of grand slam. Finally the > opener leapt to 6D (intending to pull the 6C card), and looked away, thinking > the auction would be over. Diamonds had never been bid naturally. The next > player passed, and responder began to consider what this could possibly show. > After 20 seconds or so, opener turned back and saw her mistake. The director > allowed a correction under L25A. In the Netherlands this ruling would have been the same. JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 00:49:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:49:20 +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 AAA02207 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:49:13 +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 JAA10216 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:08:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123085516.00691118@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:55:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L27 amendments? In-Reply-To: <199811222020.PAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:20 PM 11/22/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> >TD can determine the likely sequence in which the IB was intended, and >> >if there's a bid in the legal sequence that conveys at least the same >> >information, then (27B1a, no penalty)." >> >> That was Bobby Wolff's idea, not mine. > >> My first idea was that whether the insufficient or the sufficient bid >> is conventional or not should be irrelevant. In the absence of UI, I >> would always allow the bid to be corrected to the next legal bid up. >> >> Usually people just tell me this won't work, without thought. Please >> ignore your own first reaction, think about it, and then tell me what is >> wrong with it. > >Ohhh... what an invitation! > >Actually, David's idea isn't terrible, but I think we can do better. >The problem is that he wants to consider the bid instead of its >meaning. > >Suppose we have 1S-1C... Well, we can probably guess the auction the >insufficient bidder (IB'er) was imagining :-), and if 1C was vaguely >natural and 2C is a sound natural overcall, there is no problem >allowing a correction to 2C. But what if 1C was strong and >artificial? Isn't the message about 16+ points (or whatever) a bit >much? Even if 2C is natural but a light overcall, the information that >overcaller has a full opening bid might be a problem. Sure, it's UI >for partner, but who wants to the rules written to invite more UI >disputes? Much better to bar offender's partner and let offender guess >what to do. > >Now suppose we have 2NT-P-2H by a pair who play transfers over 2NT but >not 1NT. If you look at IB'ers hand, you will discover he has a weakish >hand with hearts. Why not let him make his normal transfer bid of 3D or >even 4D? The withdrawn 2H bid might, I suppose, give some subtle piece >of UI, but it's hard to imagine it will be important. > >Anyway, the underlying theme is clear. If we are sometimes going to bar >offender's partner and sometimes not, the distinction ought to be made >on the basis of the _information_ transmitted by the IB and not on the >basis of the denomination or conventionality of the IB. > >Yes, there are problems with this approach, and I'm not sure it can be >made simple enough to work in practice. It seems worth exploring, >though, if we want to get rid of the "convention" part of L27. > >> If, however, you don't like it after thought, try the watered down >> version: you may correct to the next legal bid up so long as it is not >> conventional. Try that, and tell me why it does not work. > >This, on the other hand, really is terrible. Why should it matter if >the replacement bid is conventional or not? (It _used_ to matter a >great deal, but that was before the withdrawn bid became UI.) No, if >you are going to make a distinction based on conventional or not, it's >the IB that matters, not the replacement, but this whole approach opens >at least two problem areas that we may not need to face. > >Of course none of this has anything to do with the rules as they are >now; it merely explores what might be written in 2007. The complaint one hears about L27 is that the application of L27B1(a) is too restrictive; indeed, everyone cites the same example, 2NT-P-2D, where responder has hearts, and 3D would show hearts. This could be covered by changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted incontrovertably carry the same meaning and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination..." (with an analogous change to L27B2). Mr. Wolff's suggestion seems too open-ended; while it might work in theory, it would be a nightmare for TDs/ACs to apply: It's not too hard to determine whether the 3D bid carries the intended meaning (in the example, offender clearly thought he was bidding to 1NT-P-?), but I can't see asking the TD/AC to determine whether *any* bid in the OS's methods would carry that meaning. And the suggested change would accomplish the objective that Steve (and others) seem to want, i.e. making the ruling not be dependent on what is or isn't "conventional". I have argued in the past that, in theory, it is meaningless to ascribe a meaning to an IB, but in practice (as in the example) there may be an obvious assumption that can be made based on offender's hand. The major problem with my suggestion is that it crosses another thread -- how is the TD at the table to determine whether to allow the correction to 3D (without penalty) without looking at offender's hand? 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 Nov 24 01:03:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 01:03:24 +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 BAA02241 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 01:02:56 +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 JAA10690 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:22:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123090854.00689cf0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:08:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorised Information from Insufficient Bid? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:41 AM 11/22/98 -0500, Richard wrote: >Q >AQxx >Kx >JTxxxx > >Pairs Vulnerable. > >You dealt > >The bidding proceeds (opponents silent) > >1C 1S >2C 2H >3H 3H > >RHO accepts the second 3H bid and passes. > >Are you allowed to bid 4H? Yes. You can do whatever you want. (The UI provision of L27B1(b) doesn't apply in situations governed by L27A.) >Does it make any difference if RHO says (before the director can >be called) "You can correct that" and partner does so before the >director arrives? Assuming Richard means instead of, not after, accepting the 3H IB, the 4H correction stands, and (assuming no issue of 3H or 4H being conventional) now you still have a bid coming. 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 Nov 24 01:53:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 01:53:47 +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 BAA02343 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 01:53:41 +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 AA270893080; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:58:00 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/15.6) id KAA28870; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:00:45 -0500 (EST) X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:00:31 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Law 25B in ACBL land 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, Playing in an ACBL tournament recently, I had the curiousity to ask some TDs (not on BLML) how they deal with the interpretationof Law 25B by WBFLC (change of call allowed only for a stupid mistake). They told me they never heard about this interpretation. They use Law 25B when a player want to change his call and Law 25A is no more applicable. The player has nothing to say to justify his change (even of mind) but will receive an Ave-. I would like to know from other ACBL TDs if they received instructions to use the last WBFLC interpretation of Law 25B. What is the official ACBL position concerning Law 25B and other Lille interpretations of Laws pointed out by David ? Are local authorities free or not to adopt WBF interpretations of Laws ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 03:17:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:17:32 +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 DAA02645 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:17:17 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA04067 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08651 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:21:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:21:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811231621.LAA08651@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 01:36:33 +0000 > From: David Stevenson > Experience shows that when > someone bids 1C over 1S he either meant to bid 2C over 1S, or 1C over a > pass. But only in the second will L27 apply. If it's the first, it will just be changed under L25A. > Furthermore, a 1C overcall is a special case: there are usually > three possibilities. 1D over 1S can be one of three things. But only two are relevant for L27, and as long as both show a few diamonds and not much else, we can allow correction to 2D (or possibly 3D intermediate or strong) unless that is something special. > In most cases it does not matter whether the IB is conventional or not > because *no-one knows* whether it is. The question was about the replacement bid. David G. has raised an excellent point, which will take some time to answer. The question about the IB is not whether it is conventional or not but rather what, if any, information it might have conveyed. At least that was the main point of my previous message. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 03:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:27:37 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f62.hotmail.com [207.82.251.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA02687 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:27:29 +1100 Received: (qmail 5776 invoked by uid 0); 23 Nov 1998 16:31:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19981123163118.5775.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.85 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:31:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.85] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:31:17 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau's comment on many other people's ideas on insufficient bids: > >The complaint one hears about L27 is that the application of L27B1(a) >is too restrictive; indeed, everyone cites the same example, >2NT-P-2D, where responder has hearts, and 3D would show hearts. This >could be covered by changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both >the insufficient bid and the bid substituted incontrovertably carry >the same meaning and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient >bid in the same denomination..." (with an analogous change to L27B2). While I like this in theory, it could be difficult to work in practice. And while I generally don't like this kind of argument, think of it the other way - the auction goes 1NT-p-3D (responder obviously thought the opening bid was 2NT, and has hearts). Now I don't know what 3D means in this partnership over 1NT, but it almost certainly isn't hearts - yet responder has no options other than L25B (I'm assuming here that 2NT-p-"2D sorry 3D" isn't an IB, so the L25A case isn't analagous. What do people think?). Since in the L25B case, the pair is playing for A- at best, I don't see why the L27 case need be changed. I believe that the change in the 1997 Laws was too restrictive, but not much, and significanly less wrong than the 1987 Laws were, being too lenient. (oh, and after 2NT-p-2D, the gamble is likely going to at least get you playing for average, a large part of the time). Another thought: You're playing against the Piranha Club, where 1H shows 5+ hearts, 8-12, and 2H shows 5+ hearts, 13-16. The auction goes (2H)-2H, where (1H)-2H would be Ghestem or it's ilk, and you get it right. Would 3H be "incontrovertibly" the same bid? (I'm trying to come up with a different auction than a missed transfer, and having great difficulty - maybe control asking bids after partner's preempt, or responses to 5NT king-blackwood?). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 03:32:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:32:44 +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 DAA02706 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:32:38 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA07808 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:36:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08716 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:36:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:36:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811231636.LAA08716@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both the insufficient bid and > the bid substituted incontrovertably carry the same meaning and if the bid > is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination..." > (with an analogous change to L27B2). Why restrict it to the lowest sufficient bid, and why require that the substituted bid be in the same denomination? It's fine if the replacement bid shows _more_ information than the IB. The problem is if the IB shows more information or entirely different information. > I have argued in the past that, in theory, it is meaningless to ascribe a > meaning to an IB, but in practice (as in the example) there may be an > obvious assumption that can be made based on offender's hand. The major > problem with my suggestion is that it crosses another thread -- how is the > TD at the table to determine whether to allow the correction to 3D (without > penalty) without looking at offender's hand? Yes, these are only two of the practical problems of implementing any such suggestion. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 04:13:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:13:33 +1100 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 EAA02784 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:13:25 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA26460 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:17:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026385; Mon Nov 23 11:16:47 1998 Received: by har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE16DA.1E9DEB20@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:09:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE16DA.1E9DEB20@har-pa1-17.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Procedural Penalties Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:32:55 -0500 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, this would not be overruling on a point of law. It could easily be that given the same facts, the AC determines that a PP is warranted BASED ON THOSE FACTS. This possibly might be "overruling" the TD on the interpretation of the facts (which is why we have ACs I thought) but not on the application or interpretation of any Law. I would not expect this to occur with great regularity, but I would view it as well within the powers of the AC. Craig ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 8:48 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Steve Willner writes: > I don't, however, see how you can limit the AC's scope within the board > being appealed. Take a typical MI case. Perhaps the TD has neglected > the UI implications of a wrong explanation or gotten the bridge > judgment wrong about what the UI suggests. Surely we want the AC to > fix that. Or suppose the AC finds additional MI relating to a > different call? Or discovers that the play contained a revoke that > nobody realized? The AC is expected to find the facts, and it's easy > to imagine discovering new irregularities. Where do you set limits on > which irregularities can be redressed? > No, the AC's job is to restore equity within the rules. It shouldn't > be limited in how it does that except by the rules themselves and of > course by good judgment, common sense, and the practical limits of > time and effort. However, if the AC imposes a procedural penalty which the TD didn't impose for the same facts, it is overruling the TD on a point of law, which it seems should not be allowed without the TD's consent. If the AC finds facts which the TD did not find, it is not overruling the TD on a point of law. -- 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 Nov 24 04:14:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:14:52 +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 EAA02803 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:14:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zhzdV-0002A2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:18:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:50:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <365556D1.63EAF644@village.uunet.be> <36568899.66CBCD1@village.uunet.be> <36591F93.59D9A7B8@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36591F93.59D9A7B8@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >> >My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the >> >result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? >> > >> I see what you mean. Unfortunately L86A disagrees with you. >> > >Does it ? > >I read L86A to mean that 40% equals -3IMPs. > >Nowhere in the book does it spell out how a score of 40% shall be >compared to +1370 at some other table, in MP play. Nowhere does it say >how -3IMPs is to be compared to +1370 at the other table in a team >match. > >I firmly believe that the SO can make provisions for this, just as it >does when stating that Neuberging is to be done for the other scores >when an Av- is awarded at some table. > There's no need to bring motor racing circuits into this! Neuberg is different. It is merely a method of arranging how to compare scores that are going to be compared anyway. However, you want to compare +1370 with .... ? I expect that the SO can make some sort of provision - but I do not see how, fairly. -- 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 Nov 24 04:14:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:14:55 +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 EAA02804 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 04:14:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zhzdV-0002A1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:18:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:47:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI for TD References: <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> <01BE149A.1F7C1FE0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> <3.0.5.32.19981123090150.007f5500@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981123090150.007f5500@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >At 21:46 20/11/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Craig Senior wrote: >>>This may raise the question anew though whther or not we MAY look at the >>>hands. The EBL practice does not seem to be universal, and may not be >>>clearly mandated by Law. If not, would this be a circumstance for those TDs >>>in areas that do not forbid doing so to look at the hands as an aid to >>>rendering a correct judgement? >> The reason for not looking at a hand is not solely UI considerations. >>Let me try to construct an example [very easy with other infractions]. >> >> Suppose that the bidding goes 1H 1S 4D 4S; 4NT P 5D P; P. >> >> Now the player wished to change his last pass. >> >> His hand is >> Qx >> AQJx >> KQT98x >> Q >> >> Are you going to allow it? >> >> Immediately you look at his hand you suddenly realise that you need to >>know what 4D means, what is going on, why he opened 1H, and so on. The >>only way to make a sensible judgement once you have looked at his hand >>is to ask a number of questions about methods, then go away, probably >>consult, certainly digest the implications, and then rule. >> >> In effect, what you are trying to do is to do what TDs do in >>hesitation situations, but instead of taking half an hour to rule, you >>have to do it instantly. >> > I am still not convinced by the accuracy of never looking at hands, a >practical rule I discovered on this mailing list. How bad can it be for TD >to gather additional evidence and, maybe, choose not to use it for his >ruling? In your example, TD may decide not to ask the player for too many >questions in order to prevent UI, or only ask why he wants to change his >bid, or investigate very deeply, or decide not to take the player's cards >into account. Why not to be confident in TD's ability to deal at his best >with UI problems? He can wait for the end of the play to explain his >decision an not let anybody know whether it was influenced by the player's >cards, or do you think it's actually impracticable? I think you have missed the time factor. Good TDs take a fair time, say half-an-hour complete minimum, to make a judgement ruling, and even if a TD is going to be very careful, and very good at not giving UI himself, you are still asking him to judge a hand, and to do it in less time than a player - it is not practical! -- 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 Nov 24 07:50:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 07:50:07 +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 HAA03296 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 07:49:33 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zi2zY-0004vw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:53:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:50:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L27 amendments? References: <199811231621.LAA08651@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811231621.LAA08651@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 01:36:33 +0000 >> From: David Stevenson >> Experience shows that when >> someone bids 1C over 1S he either meant to bid 2C over 1S, or 1C over a >> pass. > >But only in the second will L27 apply. If it's the first, it will just >be changed under L25A. Why? It's not a mechanical error. >> Furthermore, a 1C overcall is a special case: there are usually >> three possibilities. 1D over 1S can be one of three things. > >But only two are relevant for L27, and as long as both show a few >diamonds and not much else, we can allow correction to 2D (or possibly >3D intermediate or strong) unless that is something special. Why? There's no mechanical error involved. If I bid 1C over 1S, intending to bid 2C, it is only a L25A case if my brain told my fingers to pull out 2C and my fingers pulled out 1C. If my brain throws a wobbler and says 1C as an overcall over 1S then it is not correctable under L25A. >> In most cases it does not matter whether the IB is conventional or not >> because *no-one knows* whether it is. > >The question was about the replacement bid. David G. has raised an >excellent point, which will take some time to answer. > >The question about the IB is not whether it is conventional or not but >rather what, if any, information it might have conveyed. At least that >was the main point of my previous message. But you are presuming too much about the meaning of the IB. -- 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 Nov 24 08:42:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:42:38 +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 IAA03421 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:42:32 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA22217 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA09103 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:46:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:46:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811232146.QAA09103@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >> Experience shows that when > >> someone bids 1C over 1S he either meant to bid 2C over 1S, or 1C over a > >> pass. > > > >But only in the second will L27 apply. If it's the first, it will just > >be changed under L25A. > > Why? It's not a mechanical error. How's that again? He _meant_ to bid 2C over 1S, but it came out 1C. Isn't that the very definition of a mechanical error? > If I bid 1C over 1S, intending to bid 2C, it is only a L25A case if my > brain told my fingers to pull out 2C and my fingers pulled out 1C. If > my brain throws a wobbler and says 1C as an overcall over 1S then it is > not correctable under L25A. I am finding your distinction very hard to understand, and I don't see how you could ever apply it without reading the player's mind. Anyway, this whole issue does not affect the main point. I freely concede that there are practical questions of whether the approach Wolff (?) and I are suggesting can be implemented or not. (I put in the question mark because I don't wish to assert that Wolff advocates the same approach I do, but I gather he does.) > >The question about the IB is not whether it is conventional or not but > >rather what, if any, information it might have conveyed. At least that > >was the main point of my previous message. > > But you are presuming too much about the meaning of the IB. I am not presuming anything about the meaning of the IB. I am presuming that at least in some cases, we can rule out the IB having a meaning other than the meaning conveyed by the replacement bid. If not, we might as well just bar offender's partner and have done with it. The present L27 uses "conventional" as a substitute for finding the meaning (implicitly presuming that we can tell whether the IB might have been conventional or not). My whole point is that "conventional or not" is the wrong question to be asking. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 08:55:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:55:10 +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 IAA03498 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:55:05 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA21991 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:59:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA09131 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:59:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:59:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811232159.QAA09131@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > The UI rule creates a serious problem, though. Suppose that RHO opens > 1D, and you bid 1D. If you correct to 2D (Michaels) and partner is > allowed to bid, he'll probably bid 4S or something similar, given that > the withdrawn 1D is UI. The fact that 2D would have been conventional > makes the penalty more severe than necessary; under the current rules, > offender can bid 2D and bar partner. Under the proposed rull, offender > must either pass, barring partner while imposing UI and lead penalties, > or bid 3D, which eliminates the lead penalty at a serious risk. (I > would eliminate any UI based on the unbarred meaning of the bid here, > since the fact that partner will be barred is AI and this changes the > meaning of the bid.) I would have said the UI rule _solves_ a serious problem. If I play Michaels, my system is what prevents a natural 2D overcall. Why should the rules allow me to create a bid that doesn't exist in my system if I first commit an infraction? Of course L23 will sometimes protect the NOS, but I'd be much happier with a type 1 rule that simply bars the bid that shouldn't exist. In particular, if I have a natural 1D opener or overcall and no way to express it over RHO's 1D opening, so be it! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 09:04:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:04:27 +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 JAA03592 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:04:10 +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 RAA08397 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:23:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123170955.006d6b54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:09:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L27 amendments? In-Reply-To: <199811231636.LAA08716@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:36 AM 11/23/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both the insufficient bid and >> the bid substituted incontrovertably carry the same meaning and if the bid >> is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination..." >> (with an analogous change to L27B2). > >Why restrict it to the lowest sufficient bid, and why require that the >substituted bid be in the same denomination? It's fine if the >replacement bid shows _more_ information than the IB. The problem is if >the IB shows more information or entirely different information. Only because I wasn't looking for a major change in the laws, merely for a way to solve the particular problem raised by auctions like 2NT-P-2C/3C, where the IBer clearly intended the IB to be Stayman, and is playing 2NT-P-3C as Stayman. Because my gut feeling is that anything more becomes a nightmare for TDs/ACs trying to adjudicate the point. >> I have argued in the past that, in theory, it is meaningless to ascribe a >> meaning to an IB, but in practice (as in the example) there may be an >> obvious assumption that can be made based on offender's hand. The major >> problem with my suggestion is that it crosses another thread -- how is the >> TD at the table to determine whether to allow the correction to 3D (without >> penalty) without looking at offender's hand? > >Yes, these are only two of the practical problems of implementing any >such suggestion. And there are others. For example, how would we deal with an IB and a lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (LSB/SD, David?) when they each show multiple possible holdings, depending on follow-up, where one or more of the multiple meanings are the same, and it was clearly such a meaning that was intended (example from stuff I frequently play: 2NT-P-2S, where I hold long clubs, and was apparently attempting to respond to 1NT with 2S, showing either a NT invitation or long clubs; should I now be allowed to bid 3S without penalty, where 2NT-P-3S shows one of long clubs, long diamonds, or a minor 2-suiter?). Personally, I'd be happy to see L27B1(a) revert to what it was before the 1987 revisions, when the reference to "conventional" was introduced. I'm not sure what that change was about in the first place. I'm told that it was intended to prevent the obviously unethical "two-way" use of IBs (4NT over partner's 4S would ask for aces, so you bid 3NT then correct to 4NT (without penalty under the pre-1987 laws) to make a natural 4NT bid), but it seems to me that that was covered by adding L27B1(b) in 1975. 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 Nov 24 10:14:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:14:42 +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 KAA03794 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:14:35 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA25017 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA09211 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:18:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:18:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811232318.SAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Personally, I'd be happy to see L27B1(a) revert to what it was before the > 1987 revisions, when the reference to "conventional" was introduced. This is David's original suggestion, isn't it? It seems to be a reversion to the 1975 Laws _except_ that the IB is now UI, whereas it used to be AI (to the OS). The change to UI seems to solve most of the problems of "two-way" bids, and 27B1b fixes most of the rest. This may be the best practical solution, but I think the "lowest sufficient in same denomination" rule is misdirected for the reasons I've given. I agree it makes more sense than what we have now. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 24 17:45:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:45:20 +1100 Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA04766 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:45:15 +1100 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p38.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.118]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA08110; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:49:30 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981123055957.00704a6c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 05:59:57 +1100 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: REDIRECTED by request of sender: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981120131543.00728460@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:15 20/11/98 -0500, you wrote: > > Objet: RE: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div > 1) > > At 01:16 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Craig wrote: > > >I believe this is why Grattan indicated that he was communicating > the > >material from Lille to the appropriate National and Zonal > organisations > >first, before sharing it with BLML. In other words, it was first > >disseminated through channels, then disseminated here as well for > those of > >us who have expressed interest. Is this not as it should be? > > It is just as it should be; if only it were! In the ACBL, the > "channels" > seem to reach only as far as the TDs who work at the NABCs. A few > lower-level TDs will learn of the communication by word of mouth, but > sometimes that takes on the aspect of a game of Rumor. We'll be > lucky if > "the word" reaches half the TDs in North America before the 2007 laws > come > out. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > You can imagine the lack of information at the club director > level.... > I hear all sorts of horrors around me from many clubs directors (and > TD also) but can not blame them totaly cause I know they receive no > information nor formation from ACBL. I consider I am lucky to have > BLML to improve my knoledge of Laws and to test some rulings. > > But I know my relations with some directors will become heavy > because players use to check rulings with more than one and our > intrepretation of Laws will become more and more different. Imagine > the reaction when I will first allow a change of "stupid bid" with > Law 25B > and will not on a change of mind as I understand now from BLML. > Most club directors (and TD) do not realy apply the new Law 25B > thinking this Ave- affair is too much complicated. They had never, > and > and will not in a near future I think, heard about the much more > complex > interpretation of Law 25B by WBFLC. > > If nothing is done by local authorities, BLML will create a ghetto... > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City This need not be, but it requires some self-help. In Australia, which has the same geographical problems as the ACBL, we have for some years had a voluntary Australian Bridge Directors' Association. We produce a quarterly journal ( 24 A4 pages)on directing matters for all levels of directors (I am the editor). We have no authoritative status, but are well regarded by the NCBO. By now, every one of our members will have been well informed on the decisions at Lille, and there will be further discussion in later issues. There would be very few bridge clubs in Australia which are not represented amongst our membership. Subscription costs are minimal, and the work is all voluntary. Many bridge clubs are now paying the membership fees for *all* of their regular directors. Discussions on BLML have often supplied inspiration for material for the Bulletin. Membership is around 450, including 20+ from New Zealand plus a small number of overseas subscribers. There is no reason why other countries could not establish lines of communication with their directors in a similar way. But don't wait for your NCBO to do it. It is a lot of work, but countries with large bridge populations could probably afford to pay an editor to produce such a bulletin. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 00:59:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:59:04 +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 AAA07783 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:58:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0ziJ3Q-0004Sc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:03:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:10:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L27 amendments? References: <199811232318.SAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811232318.SAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> Personally, I'd be happy to see L27B1(a) revert to what it was before the >> 1987 revisions, when the reference to "conventional" was introduced. > >This is David's original suggestion, isn't it? It seems to be a >reversion to the 1975 Laws _except_ that the IB is now UI, whereas it >used to be AI (to the OS). The change to UI seems to solve most of the >problems of "two-way" bids, and 27B1b fixes most of the rest. Not if I am the David referred to. Pre-1987 the only test was whether the IB was conventional, not the LSB. I would be happy with a test whether the LSB was conventional, not the IB. -- 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 Nov 25 00:58:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:58:55 +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 AAA07775 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:58:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0ziJ3Q-0004Sd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:12:10 +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 Claude Dadoun Moustique 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 Wed Nov 25 02:30:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:30:28 +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 CAA08117 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:30:20 +1100 Received: from root@tamaya.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.31] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:32:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from tntrasp20-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.201] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:32:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <365AD1E4.5FDE@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:33:56 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: David Burn , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) 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 QAA08114 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >=20 > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. >=20 > "The Jury had each formed a different view > (Long before the indictment was read), > And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew > One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll > =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ---------- > > From: David Burn > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: Re: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) > > Date: 18 November 1998 20:14 > > > > A test case, since I don't have strong views about this one way or th= e > > other: > > > > > > Judging by the tone of this thread, I gather there may be some suppor= t > > for my version of Law 25, which runs:- > ------------------------------------------\x/--------------------------= ------- > --------------- > > Law 25. A call once made may not be changed. > > Law 26... > > > ++++ Clean ++++ ~ Grattan ~ Of course! Look to Chess ruling. Perhaps we may accept 25A as now and 25B as you write it. We have now only to define, if I may say so, when a bid is made when bidding boxes are in usage...We don't have the same standarts(criteria?)=20 in France in Netherlands and perhaps in Great Britain? Rules for world=20 championships are not the Code.I know one or two bridge players who=20 don't play Bermuda Bowl, you too perhaps? And as you know our dear=20 International Code remains silent on this topic! God only (or B.Wolff )=20 knows why! " And that's what my daughter is dumb..." Moli=E8re Best regards and Amicalement From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 06:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:12:28 +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 GAA08570 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:12:19 +1100 Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA02175 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:10:54 -0900 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:10:54 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27 amendments? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981123085516.00691118@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Eric Landau wrote: > > The complaint one hears about L27 is that the application of L27B1(a) is > too restrictive; indeed, everyone cites the same example, 2NT-P-2D, where > responder has hearts, and 3D would show hearts. This could be covered by > changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both the insufficient bid and > the bid substituted incontrovertably carry the same meaning and if the bid > is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination..." > (with an analogous change to L27B2). This IMO is far, far more restrictive than the current law. Playing SA, consider the sequence 1S-1D... the 1D opening is 13-22 , 3+ diamonds, a correction to 2D is 1117, 5+ diamonds. That is not 'incontrovertibly the same meaning' , so I am going to bar partner after at least 90% of my insufficient bids! In fact, 2NT-2C/D/H are almost the only sequences on which I *would* allow a correction if the above change were made. I am not overly unhappy with the current law. What dismayed me was that the rules for insufficient bids were tightened, while the rules for other changes of call were liberalized. (I would have preferred to leave it as "unless you correct without pause for thought the call stands, period", with the bid-box interpretation being, "if you let go of the card, or maintain it face up on the table so partner can see it, the call stands, period." And no, my name is not Benito.) *** Here's one to think about. You play Drury, and the auction begins Pass Pass 1S 2D 2C or Pass Pass 1S 2C 2C. Under the current rules we bar the opener in both cases. Given that 1S-2C-3C shows spade fit and around 10 points for a lot of people, does the "correct transfers without penalty" school think a correction to 3C without penalty is appropriate in the second auction? And - while we are at it - does it make any difference if the 2C bidder turns out not to have spades and does have clubs when thius sequence comes up? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 07:21:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:21:53 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08684 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:21:44 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.219] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA15143 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:25:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <365B164A.C350A6C4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:25:46 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - Nov. 98 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 secondrelease 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 (cats) 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) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan peter Pals - Turbo (none) 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 Wed Nov 25 08:13:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:13:23 +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 IAA08765 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:13:13 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id QAA22486; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id QAA08935; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:17:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811242117.QAA08935@csb.bu.edu> Subject: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:17:27 -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 Hi again-- In a previous email I presented as an example a situation where a delayed correction of a bid was allowed per L25A. Consensus was that this was correct, and that L25A is applicable after a delay. My follow-up question (and the real reason I presented the situation) is: What then would be the difference between a L25A correction after a delay, and a L25B correction (presuming the Lille interpretation)? When it takes some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems to me that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it is wrong does not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" sense of the word. Thus any situation which is correctable under L25B (for a max avg-) would also be correctable under L25A (with no penalty). --David Metcalf David Metcalf wrote previously: >>Hi-- >> >>Another question on L25: >> >>The header for L25B (I know the headers are not part of the laws, but >>that does not mean they arent worth mentioning) refers to "*delayed* >>or purposeful correction". >> >>In the ACBL, I have seen situations where there was a significant >>delay between error and correction, but during that delay it was >>evident that the person "wasnt thinking about the bid", and so the >>auction was allowed to be corrected per L25A, since this was "without >>pause for thought." >> >>An example (using bidding boxes, but without screens): Player A opened 1C. >>In the ensuing auction the expert pair agreed on clubs as trump and were >>bidding toward slam. Along the way they implied that they were missing 1st >>round heart control, so there was no possibility of grand slam. Finally the >>opener leapt to 6D (intending to pull the 6C card), and looked away, thinking >>the auction would be over. Diamonds had never been bid naturally. The next >>player passed, and responder began to consider what this could possibly show. >>After 20 seconds or so, opener turned back and saw her mistake. The director >>allowed a correction under L25A. >> >>--David Metcalf (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 08:49:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:49:29 +1100 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 IAA08876 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:49:21 +1100 Received: from p0bs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.12] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0ziQOq-0000gr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:53:33 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - Nov. 98 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:55:23 -0000 Message-ID: <01be17f5$22c959c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please include Penny. She is a white toy poodle who has been on about 80 Bridge weekends, and regularly plays the dummy when we play matches at home. She prefers rubber-bridge. Our guests are usually more inebriate and she has more treats. Penny has just had her 15th birthday, is very well and likes cats and budgies. She is well and hopes to play bridge for many years yet. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:08 PM Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - Nov. 98 >Dear all H-BLML (human....) members > >Here is the secondrelease 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 > (cats) >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) >Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) >Jan peter Pals - Turbo (none) > > >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 Wed Nov 25 11:14:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:20 +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 LAA09200 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:13 +1100 Received: from modem73.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.201] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziSf8-0002mM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:18:31 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: Fw: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:45:29 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: William J Schoder Extracted from private message. This comment re Screen problem:- ================================================== > Without knowing exactly what the "......limitation to the scope of Law > 25B handed down at Lille......" is I'd do the following. Allow a > purposeful change of call, and make sure that EVERYONE was fully aware of > all the provisions of 25B2. Particularly (2) thereof and the lead > penalties. > > KOJAK ================================================== From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 11:14:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:20 +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 LAA09199 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:12 +1100 Received: from modem73.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.201] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziSfA-0002mM-00; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:18:33 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L3 (was L79B) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:25:55 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L3 (was L79B)> > But talking of odd movements, > > Twenty-odd years ago I played in a European fund-raiser with Mike > Swanson. Both of us promised to get there early, and we duly met on the > steps of the Liverpool Adelphi hotel a mere five minutes after the start > time. The Directors let us play, and we sat in East-West Yellow. > > The basic organisation of the event was in Grattan's hands - we were > somewhat surprised to be in the only line who sat stationary throughout > the event! > ++++ We had a band of young fit individuals who used to fix it so they were always N/S in the primary row. I just did some unfixing, that is all. Those with a real need to be stationary were looked after. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 11:14:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:23 +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 LAA09204 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:14:15 +1100 Received: from modem73.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.201] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziSfE-0002mM-00; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:18:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:17:22 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll =================================== ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 21 November 1998 15:14 > > At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ One of the powers > > -------------------------------------\x/----------------\x/------------------- --------------- >> Many of us are concerned with the following question: is it appropriate for > an AC to assign a PP for an irregularity when the requisite conditions for > redress under other provisions are not present, simply for the purpose of > expressing their displeasure with the "offenders"? NS have some sort of > hesitation sequence, N takes an action that could have been suggested, > etc., but they end up too high and go down. TD rules no damage, since EW > appear to have a pretty good score as a result. But EW appeal, claiming > that they somehow might have gotten a still better score. The AC finds this > argument to be baseless, but feel that "equity" demands that NS should be > punished for the illegal bid by N. May they assign a PP for this? > [++++ I believe this is the nub of the question that has been raised, and it may be that my comments now will not be exactly what you expect. The question is targeted exactly, in my opinion, upon the boundary between the role of the WBF as promulgator of the laws and the role of the NBO as the executive. The laws provide the enabling power to award a PP. They show in principle the purpose of the PP. They do not - and I stress this is my opinion - seek to give direction as to the use of the power in application to particular occasions and circumstances. This, I believe, is the role of the regulating authority, which may guide directors according to the social and competitive character of the event and in relation to the prevailing attitudes of the participating bridge community. I consider it is proper for the laws to have a single universal meaning (provided by the WBF as their generator); I consider it is equally proper to provide for variation in the usage through the agency of regulating authorities in order to match to the custom, practice and attitudes prevalent in the area where an event is staged. Now that statement will, perhaps, disappoint Marvin and Michael if they supposed my view represented an unqualified support for their arguments. I hold that the law does give the power to award a PP in the circumstances Michael postulates; as to whether it is done will, in my concept, depend upon the perspectives of the local hierarchy. Grattan ~ ++++] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 12:23:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:23:58 +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 MAA09346 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:20:04 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0ziTgl-0002WZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:24:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:22:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >> From: William J Schoder > >Extracted from private message. This comment re Screen problem:- >================================================== >> Without knowing exactly what the "......limitation to the scope of Law >> 25B handed down at Lille......" is I'd do the following. Allow a >> purposeful change of call, and make sure that EVERYONE was fully aware of >> all the provisions of 25B2. Particularly (2) thereof and the lead >> penalties. >> >> KOJAK >================================================== Thanks Grattan, I'm comfortable with the whole caboodle now. Regards to Kojak, hope to see him Wiesbaden again 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 Nov 25 12:30:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:30:12 +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 MAA09385 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:29:57 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0ziToY-00038O-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:32:19 +0000 Message-ID: <8ICO+sBg31W2EwnV@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:31:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) In-Reply-To: <199811242117.QAA08935@csb.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199811242117.QAA08935@csb.bu.edu>, David Metcalf writes >Hi again-- > >In a previous email I presented as an example a situation where a delayed >correction of a bid was allowed per L25A. Consensus was that this was >correct, and that L25A is applicable after a delay. > >My follow-up question (and the real reason I presented the situation) is: > >What then would be the difference between a L25A correction after a delay, >and a L25B correction (presuming the Lille interpretation)? When it takes >some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems to me >that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it is wrong does >not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" sense of the word. >Thus any situation which is correctable under L25B (for a max avg-) would >also be correctable under L25A (with no penalty). > >--David Metcalf > IMO this is not so. The test is: "Is the bid on the table the one you intended to make when you pulled the cards from the box". Now the cynics will say "well we all know that the player will say 'no'", but I still believe that mostly people tell the truth here (as does,eg DWS I think) -- 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 Nov 25 12:48:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:48:40 +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 MAA09376 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:28:04 +1100 Received: from modem109.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziTGz-0003Ii-00; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:57:38 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:56:06 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 21 November 1998 15:14 > > At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that > >established in Law 81C6. > > A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of > >the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the > >table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to > >the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature . ----------------------------------\x/----------------------\x/---------------- ---------------- > > We think not. We agree with Grattan that the wording of 90a (and, we would > add, the examples chosen to illustrate the use of a PP in 90b) makes clear > that PP's are intended to meet a different type of concern than the > penalties-for-redress defined elsewhere, and are not meant to extend the > latter at the whim of an AC. As Grattan confirms, PP's are intended to > punish behavior which interferes with the smooth conduct of the contest, > above and beyond the actions in lower-numbered laws for which penalties are > otherwise prescribed. > +++ The words "above and beyond the actions in lower numbered laws" are not present in my text. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 13:03:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:03:32 +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 NAA09482 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:02:28 +1100 Received: from modem109.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziTGx-0003Ii-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:57:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:55:21 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ===================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play > Date: 23 November 1998 12:50 > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > > >> >My point with this post is that I don't think that in team play, the > >> >result at the other tabe should disappear. What do you think ? ++++ The circumstances leading to the ave minus have deprived the opponents of their opportunity to match or beat the score in the other room. I am in no doubt that Law 86A intends that the net swing on the board shall be 3 imps to the side that has not created the situation. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 13:21:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:21:33 +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 NAA09497 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:06:37 +1100 Received: from modem109.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziTGz-0003Ii-00; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:57:38 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:56:06 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 21 November 1998 15:14 > > At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that > >established in Law 81C6. > > A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of > >the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the > >table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to > >the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature . ----------------------------------\x/----------------------\x/---------------- ---------------- > > We think not. We agree with Grattan that the wording of 90a (and, we would > add, the examples chosen to illustrate the use of a PP in 90b) makes clear > that PP's are intended to meet a different type of concern than the > penalties-for-redress defined elsewhere, and are not meant to extend the > latter at the whim of an AC. As Grattan confirms, PP's are intended to > punish behavior which interferes with the smooth conduct of the contest, > above and beyond the actions in lower-numbered laws for which penalties are > otherwise prescribed. > +++ The words "above and beyond the actions in lower numbered laws" are not present in my text. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 13:34:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:34:08 +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 NAA09550 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:33:10 +1100 Received: from modem109.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0ziTGz-0003Ii-00; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:57:38 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:56:06 -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. "The Jury had each formed a different view (Long before the indictment was read), And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew One word that the others had said." - Lewis Carroll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties > Date: 21 November 1998 15:14 > > At 11:09 PM 11/19/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ One of the powers of the Director which the AC may exercise is that > >established in Law 81C6. > > A second matter to be observed is that the 'penalty provisions of > >the laws' are for the purposes of rectification and redress to players at the > >table. The additional authority granted to the Director, and therefore to > >the AC, in Law 90A is punitive in its nature . ----------------------------------\x/----------------------\x/---------------- ---------------- > > We think not. We agree with Grattan that the wording of 90a (and, we would > add, the examples chosen to illustrate the use of a PP in 90b) makes clear > that PP's are intended to meet a different type of concern than the > penalties-for-redress defined elsewhere, and are not meant to extend the > latter at the whim of an AC. As Grattan confirms, PP's are intended to > punish behavior which interferes with the smooth conduct of the contest, > above and beyond the actions in lower-numbered laws for which penalties are > otherwise prescribed. > +++ The words "above and beyond the actions in lower numbered laws" are not present in my text. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 25 14:47:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:47:32 +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 OAA09669 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:47:25 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-44.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.92]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA16867; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:51:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:44:27 -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: BLML Subject: Tuna, on OKB, rules! Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------690C6316892451131E6C6C65" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------690C6316892451131E6C6C65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IMPs east Pairs Board 22, Nov 24th, 1998 Dlr: East Vul: E-W S KJ97 north east south west H 753 D K4 C AT53 pass pass 1S north south pass 3S ("stop," said west.) S 8654 S QT3 H AQT9 H J62 Opening Lead: D QT63 D 752 Result: C 8 C KJ96 Score: , IMPs: west Playing time: S A2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H K84 N D AJ98 E C Q742 S W This hand came up in the OKBridge Tourney this afternoon, and the director (Tuna) was called. It seems that West inadvertently opened 1S, and didn't realize his error until he saw his partner's 3S bid. This appears to have some of the qualities of an L25 case, and I wonder how the group sees it. Tony (the director) rolled the bidding back to west, who now changed his opening bid to 1NT, which bought 2C-2D-3N as a final contract. Tony THEN ruled that we (N-S) had UI, in the form of 4 spades in the east hand, and skipped the board! Since 3NT made exactly twice, and went down numerous times, I can't help feeling that we were deprived of a chance for a good board. The UI ruling interests me. The opps made an error, providing the NOs with information and we seem to have been penalized. It seems to me that UI is something that I might know about my partner's hand, and the opponents actually profited from their error. What does everyone think? Irv --------------690C6316892451131E6C6C65 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: by u2.farm.idt.net for bigfoot (with pop daemon (v1.21 1997/08/10) Tue Nov 24 22:27:48 1998) X-From_: bigfoot@idt.net Tue Nov 24 22:27:24 1998 Received: from idt.net (ppp-44.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.92]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA07501 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:27:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <365B7765.7C0BE3C3@idt.net> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:20:05 -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: bigfoot@idt.net Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 IMPs east Pairs Board 22 Dlr: East morriswi Vul: E-W S KJ97 north east south west H 753 luzifer morriswi carolynt fcyw D K4 C AT53 pass pass 1D! north south pass 1S pass 1NT luzifer carolynt (all pass) S 8654 S QT3 H AQT9 H J62 Opening Lead: S8 D QT63 D 752 Result: -1 C 8 C KJ96 Score: -100, IMPs: -0.25 west Playing time: 5:51 fcyw S A2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H K84 N S8 8 S6 4 S5 D3 T A-HQ-H9-D6 T D AJ98 E J A-C3 9 5 T 3 5 7 S7 4 C Q742 S Q 6 9 T-CK-CJ-HJ-H6 2 S3 2 W A-C2 Q-S2 4 7 4 K 8 D8 9-DJ --------------690C6316892451131E6C6C65-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 26 00:31:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:31:00 +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 AAA12762 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:30:53 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zif6B-0000Q3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:35:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:16:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) References: <199811242117.QAA08935@csb.bu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199811242117.QAA08935@csb.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: >Hi again-- > >In a previous email I presented as an example a situation where a delayed >correction of a bid was allowed per L25A. Consensus was that this was >correct, and that L25A is applicable after a delay. > >My follow-up question (and the real reason I presented the situation) is: > >What then would be the difference between a L25A correction after a delay, >and a L25B correction (presuming the Lille interpretation)? When it takes >some thought to realize that the bid was a "stupid mistake"? It seems to me >that any bid which requires some reflection to realize that it is wrong does >not qualify as a stupid mistake in the "passing a qbid" sense of the word. >Thus any situation which is correctable under L25B (for a max avg-) would >also be correctable under L25A (with no penalty). Any time you require reflection it is no longer correctable under L25A. The delayed correction that you refer to only applies when the player did not realise he had made a call that was different from the one his brain intended. -- 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 Nov 26 03:04:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 03:04:56 +1100 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 DAA13245 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 03:04:49 +1100 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11865 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:08:57 GMT 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 QAA23324 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:08:50 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01817 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:08:47 GMT Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:08:47 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199811251608.QAA01817@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A vs L25B (was: Screen problem - Help!) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David I was interested in your choice of words (brain v. mind) and wondered if this might help to clarify L25A v L25B v no change of call. You wrote: > Any time you require reflection it is no longer correctable under > L25A. The delayed correction that you refer to only applies when the > player did not realise he had made a call that was different from the > one his brain intended. So a "stupid mistake" (for the purposes of L25B) is when you did not change you mind and the call made was the one your brain intended but your mind failed to tell your brain what to do. If the brain intended a call but the wrong words were said/wrong bidding card was selected => L25A If you had in mind a contract but the brain chose the wrong call to get to that contract => L25B If you had in mind a contract and chose the right call but then changed your mind => no change of call "Lille" Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 26 04:22:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:22:26 +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 EAA13540 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:22:18 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0ziihn-0000E4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:26:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:41:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! References: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> In-Reply-To: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: >This hand came up in the OKBridge Tourney this afternoon, and the >director (Tuna) was called. It seems that West inadvertently opened 1S, >and didn't realize his error until he saw his partner's 3S bid. This >appears to have some of the qualities of an L25 case, and I wonder how >the group sees it. > >Tony (the director) rolled the bidding back to west, who now changed his >opening bid to 1NT, which bought 2C-2D-3N as a final contract. Tony >THEN ruled that we (N-S) had UI, in the form of 4 spades in the east >hand, and skipped the board! Since 3NT made exactly twice, and went >down numerous times, I can't help feeling that we were deprived of a >chance for a good board. > >The UI ruling interests me. The opps made an error, providing the NOs >with information and we seem to have been penalized. It seems to me >that UI is something that I might know about my partner's hand, and the >opponents actually profited from their error. What does everyone think? The ruling is against the Laws of bridge. The knowledge of the four spades would be AI, not UI, but anyway L25A cannot be implemented once partner has called. -- 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 Nov 26 11:05:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:05:52 +1100 Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14366 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:05:46 +1100 Received: from ramrod.hal-pc.org (206.180.129.8.dial-ip.hal-pc.org [206.180.129.8]) by hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA28783; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:09:08 -0559 (CST) Message-ID: <365C9D72.532@hal-pc.org> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:14:42 -0600 From: Georgiana Gates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Quiz References: <01be159d$45fe6020$548793c3@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player > quiz on the Laws? > It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it > for tuition. > Many thanks > Anne You're going to pay the fees at school with the Laws? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 26 11:23:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:23:19 +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 LAA14419 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:23:13 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa16996; 25 Nov 98 16:27 PST To: BLML CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:14:42 PST." <365C9D72.532@hal-pc.org> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:26:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9811251627.aa16996@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Anne Jones wrote: > > > > Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player > > quiz on the Laws? > > It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it > > for tuition. > > Many thanks > > Anne > > You're going to pay the fees at school with the Laws? Actually, my Merriam-Webster's has the following definition for tuition: 1 archaic : CUSTODY, GUARDIANSHIP 2 : the act or profession of teaching : INSTRUCTION 3 : the price of or payment for instruction Copyright 1996, Merriam-Webster Inc. However, I suspect that definition (2) exists only in English, and not in the mutant language with a vague resemblance to English that we Americans speak . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 26 13:42:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:42:16 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14667 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:42:11 +1100 Received: from postoffice.utas.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29500 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:46:38 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <365CC10D.69FE856D@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:46:38 +1100 From: Mark Abraham X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Quiz References: <9811251627.aa16996@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > > > > Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player > > > quiz on the Laws? > > > It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it > > > for tuition. > > > Many thanks > > > Anne > > > > You're going to pay the fees at school with the Laws? > > Actually, my Merriam-Webster's has the following definition for > tuition: > > 1 archaic : CUSTODY, GUARDIANSHIP > 2 : the act or profession of teaching : INSTRUCTION studies under private tuition> > 3 : the price of or payment for instruction > Copyright 1996, Merriam-Webster Inc. > > However, I suspect that definition (2) exists only in English, and not > in the mutant language with a vague resemblance to English that we > Americans speak . . . > > -- Adam I was mightily confused by the thread, having never seen "tuition" used in the sense of definition (3) other than as "tuition fees"... and I've lived the US. I suspect I am not alone! :-) Mark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 27 16:57:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:57:46 +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 QAA21740 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:57:37 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h3.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id JAA26966; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:01:59 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <365EE995.7772@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:04:05 -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: test References: <3.0.1.32.19981123090854.00689cf0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) And - sorry. It is test because I did not receive any message during a day Best wishe Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 27 17:20:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:20:53 +1100 Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA21787 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:20:47 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 0PCSa05499; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:24:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4dd7ddf0.365e459b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:24:27 EST To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: test 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 Vitold, In the U.S. it is not only Thanksgiving, perhaps the biggest family holiday of our year but also the Fall Nationals are being played so many of us are very involved in playing bridge or being with families today. Cheers Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 01:00:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:00:20 +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 BAA25161 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:00:03 +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 JAA09094 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:04:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127090615.006dc6a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:06:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L27 amendments? In-Reply-To: References: <199811232318.SAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199811232318.SAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:10 AM 11/24/98 +0000, David wrote: > Not if I am the David referred to. Pre-1987 the only test was whether >the IB was conventional, not the LSB. It's rare to catch David out, but "conventional" (for the IB only) was introduced in 1987. 1975 FLB, L27B1(a): "If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auctions proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (but see (b) following)." L27B1(b) was new in 1975. >I would be happy with a test >whether the LSB was conventional, not the IB. That is an easy and straightforward solution, since IMO it really makes no sense to talk about an IB having a "conventional" meaning -- strictly speaking, an IB "isn't bridge", and doesn't have *any* meaning. It's one of those cases where the only possible definition is of the "I know it when I see it" variety. (Note, though, that some would argue that the same thing is true of "conventional" in general.) Unfortunately, it brings us no closer to solving the "insufficient transfer/Stayman" problem. We can do that only by either retaining the notion of a "conventional IB" or dropping "conventional" from L27 altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter solution, on the grounds that L27B1(b) covers us sufficiently to make special provision for conventional IBs superfluous. 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 Nov 28 01:16:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:16:38 +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 BAA25218 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:16:30 +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 JAA09278 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:20:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127092245.0068d200@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:22:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L27 amendments? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981123085516.00691118@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:10 AM 11/24/98 -0900, Gordon wrote: >On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The complaint one hears about L27 is that the application of L27B1(a) is >> too restrictive; indeed, everyone cites the same example, 2NT-P-2D, where >> responder has hearts, and 3D would show hearts. This could be covered by >> changing L27B1(b) to read something like "If both the insufficient bid and >> the bid substituted incontrovertably carry the same meaning and if the bid >> is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination..." >> (with an analogous change to L27B2). > >This IMO is far, far more restrictive than the current law. Playing SA, >consider the sequence 1S-1D... the 1D opening is 13-22 , 3+ diamonds, a >correction to 2D is 1117, 5+ diamonds. That is not 'incontrovertibly the >same meaning' , so I am going to bar partner after at least 90% of my >insufficient bids! In fact, 2NT-2C/D/H are almost the only sequences on >which I *would* allow a correction if the above change were made. Quite true; the wording above won't work as we would like. To avoid the restrictiveness that Gordon is concerned about, we would find ourselves wanting to elaborate it to introduce some notion of "significantly different" (or some special consideration for "natural" bids, which is no better than special provision for "conventional" bids). But no matter how we did it, we would still find ourselves looking for an ill-defined "fine line", and would be relying on L27B1(b) to get us through adjudications in the grey area. So, ultimately, the real test (for adjudicators) shouldn't be whether the difference between the IB and the LSB is theoretically "significant", but rather whether it was practically significant, i.e. whether it affected an opponent's actions. Which is why my personal thinking is that we should avoid these issues altogether, revert to the 1975 version of L27B1(a), and let L27B1(b) take care of the fallout. 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 Nov 28 01:44:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:44:19 +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 BAA25333 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:44:13 +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 JAA09624 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:48:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:50:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! In-Reply-To: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:44 PM 11/24/98 -0800, bigfoot wrote: >This hand came up in the OKBridge Tourney this afternoon, and the >director (Tuna) was called. It seems that West inadvertently opened 1S, >and didn't realize his error until he saw his partner's 3S bid. This >appears to have some of the qualities of an L25 case, and I wonder how >the group sees it. > >Tony (the director) rolled the bidding back to west, who now changed his >opening bid to 1NT, which bought 2C-2D-3N as a final contract. Tony >THEN ruled that we (N-S) had UI, in the form of 4 spades in the east >hand, and skipped the board! Since 3NT made exactly twice, and went >down numerous times, I can't help feeling that we were deprived of a >chance for a good board. > >The UI ruling interests me. The opps made an error, providing the NOs >with information and we seem to have been penalized. It seems to me >that UI is something that I might know about my partner's hand, and the >opponents actually profited from their error. What does everyone think? I can't begin to comment on the first part of the ruling, other than to note that Tony must have determined that the 1S bid was covered by L25A. Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all, how can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error when the player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? (One way, I suppose, would be to require a second click to "confirm" the call selected by the first, which we could then assume obviated any possibility of mechanical error, but I doubt that OLB players would find it worthwhile to introduce all that extra mouse/keyboard manipulation just to solve an esoteric legal problem.) The second part of the ruling, however, was egregiously wrong, on two counts: A board should never be cancelled because of UI -- a table result should always be achieved and subsequently adjudicated (no matter how egregious the UI or the OS's subsequent actions, there's no certainty that it will damage the NOs). And, here, there's nothing to adjudicate -- L16 makes it clear that information you obtain solely from your opponents can never be UI to your side. 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 Nov 28 01:56:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:56:12 +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 BAA25380 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:56:05 +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 KAA09822 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:00:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127100223.006e2888@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:02:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops; I responded too quickly to Irv. >I can't begin to comment on the first part of the ruling, other than to note >that Tony must have determined that the 1S bid was covered by L25A. Even so, L25A can't be applied after partner bids, so the entire ruling was wrong from start to finish. 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 Nov 28 03:23:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 03:23:14 +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 DAA25718 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 03:23:04 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA01140 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:26:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.42) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001129; Fri Nov 27 10:26:30 1998 Received: by har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE19F8.96E49860@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:25:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE19F8.96E49860@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Auctorial Intent vs res gestae Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:10:45 -0500 Encoding: 22 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a recent rgb thread someone chose to quote the OB to attempt to refute DWS. Never fearful to rush in where angels fear to tread, I questioned the wisdom of that action, noting that DWS "wrote the OB" and ought to be the best one to say what it means, just as Grattan and Ton could give definitive interpretation to the Laws. DWS proved quickly that he was not to be labelled a hookah-smoking caterpilar, and pointed out that he did not personally write every word of the OB, and that what the Laws say rather that what they were meant to say might be of rather considerable importance. (He also proceeded to make a good argument on the original point after having somewhat impeached his position of ultimate authority by using such creditable tools as intelligence and logic.) The underlying question though remains a little unclear in my mind. If a Law (or a zonal or NA interpretation) appears the say one thing upon literal reading, but a clear statement of the framer's intent contradicts this, by which are we to be guided? Following all the comments from Lille this appears a fair question. What do those wiser than I (and even those few of you who are not) have to say? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 03:56:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 03:56:37 +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 DAA25789 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 03:56:30 +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 AA073216031; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:00:31 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/15.6) id MAA28103; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:03:32 -0500 (EST) X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:03:13 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Tuna, on OKB, rules! Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Objet: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! Eric Landeau wrote: =20 =20 Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all,= how can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error when the player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? (One way, I suppose, would be to require a second click to "confirm" the call selected by the first, which we could then assume obviated any possibility of mechanical error, but I doubt that OLB players would find it worthwhile to introduce all that extra mouse/keyboard manipulation just to solve= an esoteric legal problem.) =20 OKBridge Windows Inteface (used by most if not all players now) still= require a double click. You can make a true fast double click on the call choosen in the Bidding Box (risky), but it is better to click the call and then the OK-box to confirm your intent and avoid mechanical errors. I think a third click yould be too much..... =20 I ask for years a button near by the bidding box to quickly ask for an undo and freeze calls when you made an inadvertent call accordind to Law 25A. The problem now is that before you type "Please Undo", send this message on chat and alert other players of your mistake, they (including your partner) have full time to make many calls. =20 =20 That is what happened when Tuna made his ruling. May be the call was inadvertent, but partner still had bid... as usual on OKBridge, so Law 25A rarely applies. No problem in a friendly game exept when every body Pass but no solution in tournaments....exept an "Ask for Undo" button. =20 Laval Du Breuil =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 05:26:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:26:08 +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 FAA26042 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:26:03 +1100 Received: from default ([207.69.33.70]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09949 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:30:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127132853.00709140@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:28:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 AM 11/27/98 -0500, Craig wrote: >The underlying question though remains a little unclear in my mind. If a >Law (or a zonal or NA interpretation) appears the say one thing upon >literal reading, but a clear statement of the framer's intent contradicts >this, by which are we to be guided? Following all the comments from Lille >this appears a fair question. What do those wiser than I (and even those >few of you who are not) have to say? > As one of the undoubted few, I think the straightforward, literal wording of the Laws should take precedence in any attempt to interpret and apply them. It is the Laws themselves, and not ancillary statements of intent from framers or interpretations by SO's, that have passed through a formal process of review and enactment. Of course the existence of this list is a testament to the difficulty in applying even clear and unambiguously worded Laws to the variety of real-world circumstances to which they are meant to apply. And, too, not all of the Laws in TFLB are as clear or unambiguous as we would like. So we should welcome supplementary nformation supplied by competent authorities, including the kind of historical perspective which has been supplied by individuals such as Mssrs Endicott and Kaplan. But if the Laws plainly say X, then we should regard as simply misguided and ill-informed any claim that they should be read as "not X", whether such opinions are proffered by the framers of the Laws, the WBFLC, or an SO, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 05:59:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:59:51 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-22.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA26143 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 05:59:45 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zjTBT-0001Db-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:04:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:09:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! References: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all, how >can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error when the >player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? You ask him? -- 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 Nov 28 06:59:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:59:52 +1100 Received: from sb.net (root@sb.net [209.241.234.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26283 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:59:46 +1100 Received: from 207.205.157.247 (pool-207-205-156-74.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.74]) by sb.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA21963 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:02:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <365F1153.135D@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:55:00 -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: Auctorial Intent vs res gestae References: <01BE19F8.96E49860@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > [snip nice things said about DWS] > The underlying question though remains a little unclear in my mind. If a > Law (or a zonal or NA interpretation) appears the say one thing upon > literal reading, but a clear statement of the framer's intent contradicts > this, by which are we to be guided? Following all the comments from Lille > this appears a fair question. What do those wiser than I (and even those > few of you who are not) have to say? > > Craig I believe that the SO can provide clarification on laws provided that the clarification either is consistent with the literal wording or consistent with a reasonable interpretation of that wording. I do not believe it appropriate for the SO to fundamentally change the clear and unambiguous meaning of the laws, such as calling a 5-card-suit opening 3-bid conventional, or saying a change of bid must be based on a "stupid" mistake. This can be placed in the laws, but inventing it of whole cloth as an interpretation seems deeply wrong to me. If the framers intend the law to mean something, it is reasonable to expect them to tell us. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 10:36:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:36:55 +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 KAA26997 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:36:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zjVTh-0006A3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:12:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Auctorial Intent vs res gestae References: <01BE19F8.96E49860@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE19F8.96E49860@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >In a recent rgb thread someone chose to quote the OB to attempt to refute >DWS. Never fearful to rush in where angels fear to tread, I questioned the >wisdom of that action, noting that DWS "wrote the OB" and ought to be the >best one to say what it means, just as Grattan and Ton could give >definitive interpretation to the Laws. > >DWS proved quickly that he was not to be labelled a hookah-smoking >caterpilar, and pointed out that he did not personally write every word of >the OB, and that what the Laws say rather that what they were meant to say >might be of rather considerable importance. (He also proceeded to make a >good argument on the original point after having somewhat impeached his >position of ultimate authority by using such creditable tools as >intelligence and logic.) > >The underlying question though remains a little unclear in my mind. If a >Law (or a zonal or NA interpretation) appears the say one thing upon >literal reading, but a clear statement of the framer's intent contradicts >this, by which are we to be guided? Following all the comments from Lille >this appears a fair question. What do those wiser than I (and even those >few of you who are not) have to say? It is important to distinguish between an official pronouncement of the WBFLC, which is authoritative, and one man's opinion of what the Law means. Similarly, the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee can pronounce authoritatively about the Orange book, and have in fact by pointing out some errors. Black is rarely black, and white is rarely white. There is a big difference between what Grattan, Ton or Karen say here on the Laws, or David Burn or I about the Orange book, and the big bully down at the club does. Thus there is a scale of importance. But only the original Committee has the complete authority in either case. -- 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 Nov 28 11:26:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:26:00 +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 LAA27188 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:25:53 +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 RAA15558 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:43:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127174548.006dcbe4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:45:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:09 PM 11/27/98 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all, how >>can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error when the >>player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? > > You ask him? [Disclaimer: I have never played OLB, so am not familiar with its mechanics, notwithstanding a strong professional knowledge of interactive interface design in general.] I don't think that works well at all in an OLB environment, where you would be asking him asynchronously, over some kind of chat sideband, while trying to manage the rest of the table, all, at least at first, while the other players at the table are continuing to play. As Laval points out, the player's original "oops" is highly unlikely to reach the TD before partner has called. Then, even if it does, the TD has to stop the action at the table, leaving more time for the auction to continue. Then, even if that happens, the TD has to communicate with the player via the sideband, which will take a lot more time and feel a lot more disruptive than the analogous conversation at a real table. And, remember, not only is the TD not present for the change of call, but *nobody* other than the player who made it is, so there's nothing other than his flat assertion on which to base any kind of judgment as to whether to accept the player's word that his true original intent was to do something different. And while I agree with David that we can generally assume that players simply won't lie, I have serious doubts that we can generalize this from a social situation, where one would have to lie "to the face" of real opponents and a real TD, to an on-line situation, where one need only lie remotely to the faceless folks on the other end of the computer connection. If one suspects a lie in a face-to-face situation, one at least has the "look me in the eye and say that" test available, but on line it just doesn't work. We can talk about remote interpersonal relationships via computer, or about on-line "communities", but very few people (mostly those whose work environment is on line) have actually internalized these concepts to the point where their "social consciences" no longer distinguish between "real" and "on-line" life. Perfectly ethical people who would never dream of cheating at bridge routinely cheat at solitaire -- nobody even considers that an ethical issue. Reality, even at the end of the second millenneum AD, is that for most people, intellectual understanding notwithstanding, playing a game on line feels, subconsciously, a lot more like solitaire than like a "real" game. I think calls in OLB need to be treated like e-mail messages to BLML. You construct a message (by choosing a call from a list in OLB, by typing some words in BLML), examine it, and change it at will, then you hit the "Send" button, at which point it's just "gone", and you're committed to living with whatever you sent. If you later decide that what you sent was stupid, or wasn't at all what you meant to say, too bad. You had all the time you needed to correct it before you clicked "Send". 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 Nov 28 11:26:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:26:09 +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 LAA27194 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:26:02 +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 QAA14970 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:48:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981127165045.006dcbe4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:50:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Tuna, on OKB, rules! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:03 PM 11/27/98 -0500, Laval wrote: > Objet: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! > Eric Landeau wrote: > > Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all, > how > can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error > when the > player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? > (One > way, I suppose, would be to require a second click to "confirm" the > call > selected by the first, which we could then assume obviated any > possibility > of mechanical error, but I doubt that OLB players would find it > worthwhile > to introduce all that extra mouse/keyboard manipulation just to solve > an > esoteric legal problem.) > > OKBridge Windows Inteface (used by most if not all players now) still > require a double click. You can make a true fast double click on the > call choosen in the Bidding Box (risky), but it is better to click > the > call and then the OK-box to confirm your intent and avoid mechanical > errors. I think a third click yould be too much..... > > I ask for years a button near by the bidding box to quickly ask for > an undo > and freeze calls when you made an inadvertent call accordind to Law > 25A. > The problem now is that before you type "Please Undo", send this > message on chat and alert other players of your mistake, they > (including your partner) have full time to make many calls. Perhaps the double-click should be disabled, and the click on 'OK' required, or something similar. The particulars of the mechanics of the interface don't really matter, so long as they make it reasonable to presume that a call which actually gets transmitted to the server is not "inadvertent", so that L25A need never be applied. Inadvertent calls should be relegated to the same OLB limbo as revokes, calls out of turn, etc. 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 Nov 28 12:32:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:32:44 +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 MAA27256 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:32:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zjZJk-000584-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:37:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 01:35:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! References: <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> <3.0.1.32.19981127095028.006df314@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19981127174548.006dcbe4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981127174548.006dcbe4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:09 PM 11/27/98 +0000, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>Perhaps OLB will provide the impetus for simplifying L25. After all, how >>>can we possibly judge whether or not a call was a mechanical error when the >>>player making it is alone at home thousands of miles from the TD? >> >> You ask him? > >[Disclaimer: I have never played OLB, so am not familiar with its >mechanics, notwithstanding a strong professional knowledge of interactive >interface design in general.] > >I don't think that works well at all in an OLB environment, where you would >be asking him asynchronously, over some kind of chat sideband, while trying >to manage the rest of the table, all, at least at first, while the other >players at the table are continuing to play. As Laval points out, the >player's original "oops" is highly unlikely to reach the TD before partner >has called. Then, even if it does, the TD has to stop the action at the >table, leaving more time for the auction to continue. Then, even if that >happens, the TD has to communicate with the player via the sideband, which >will take a lot more time and feel a lot more disruptive than the analogous >conversation at a real table. And, remember, not only is the TD not >present for the change of call, but *nobody* other than the player who made >it is, so there's nothing other than his flat assertion on which to base >any kind of judgment as to whether to accept the player's word that his >true original intent was to do something different. I think you do need to play it, because it is not really like this. You talk to the table. If you type Undo immediately then there is a fair chance of it being realised before partner has called - and if it isn't, too bad. Now, while the TD may be called, it is likely to be interaction between the players that leads to the initial fact-finding. "Why?" one of them will say. >And while I agree with David that we can generally assume that players >simply won't lie, I have serious doubts that we can generalize this from a >social situation, where one would have to lie "to the face" of real >opponents and a real TD, to an on-line situation, where one need only lie >remotely to the faceless folks on the other end of the computer connection. > If one suspects a lie in a face-to-face situation, one at least has the >"look me in the eye and say that" test available, but on line it just >doesn't work. I don't think that games are always like this. Two of my friends met playing OKBridge, one in Delaware, one in Birmingham, England, and seemed to manage to talk to each other since they have now married! OK, when I join a table, it is just like going into a rubber bridge club and sitting down with three strangers, but it does not stay that way. I play rarely, but over the last year I have played with or against [a] A lady from California, whose husband is dying of cancer: because she feels unable to leave him, OKBridge has been the saving of her; [b] A mother and daughter in Canada, the mother having taught her daughter the game a few weeks earlier, and was now worrying that since she was such a poor player her daughter was already as good as she is; [c] A prat who lectured me long and very rudely on how to play against good players [take no chances: try nothing: play straight down the middle!]; [d] Two Portuguese who knew Rui Marques, occasional contributor here; [e] A South African, who knew Rusty Court, a lurker here; [f] A lady from Scarborough, England: I asked her if she knew Jim Proctor, one of England's top TDs, who lives there, and she said she played with him twice a month! [g] Two players form Los Angeles: when asked whether they played together regularly, she replied that she normally played with his wife! [h] Carl Hudecek: after playing with him for a solid eight hours, I discovered when playing a hand that he was telling the kibitzers how it should be played, and he was very pleased with me for dropping a singleton king offside because he had told them that good technique would lead to dropping it! >We can talk about remote interpersonal relationships via computer, or about >on-line "communities", but very few people (mostly those whose work >environment is on line) have actually internalized these concepts to the >point where their "social consciences" no longer distinguish between "real" >and "on-line" life. Perfectly ethical people who would never dream of >cheating at bridge routinely cheat at solitaire -- nobody even considers >that an ethical issue. Reality, even at the end of the second millenneum >AD, is that for most people, intellectual understanding notwithstanding, >playing a game on line feels, subconsciously, a lot more like solitaire >than like a "real" game. I don't think so. These are real people out there, and it is because I can talk to them, and do, that they take form and shape. It is quite probably true that it is not the same for everyone, but I think the comparison with solitaire is misleading: they talk to you: solitaire doesn't. >I think calls in OLB need to be treated like e-mail messages to BLML. You >construct a message (by choosing a call from a list in OLB, by typing some >words in BLML), examine it, and change it at will, then you hit the "Send" >button, at which point it's just "gone", and you're committed to living >with whatever you sent. If you later decide that what you sent was stupid, >or wasn't at all what you meant to say, too bad. You had all the time you >needed to correct it before you clicked "Send". Until we get a new version of the laws, I think they should be treated under the current Laws. -- 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 Nov 28 13:22:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:22:23 +1100 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 NAA27321 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:22:16 +1100 Received: from pc4s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.197] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zjX7r-0007jh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:16:35 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Quiz Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:18:36 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1a5c$42930f80$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: Mark Abraham To: BLML Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 3:08 AM Subject: Re: Quiz >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> > Anne Jones wrote: >> > > >> > > Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player >> > > quiz on the Laws? >> > > It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it >> > > for tuition. >> > > Many thanks >> > > Anne >> > >> > You're going to pay the fees at school with the Laws? >> >> Actually, my Merriam-Webster's has the following definition for >> tuition: >> >> 1 archaic : CUSTODY, GUARDIANSHIP >> 2 : the act or profession of teaching : INSTRUCTION > studies under private tuition> >> 3 : the price of or payment for instruction >> Copyright 1996, Merriam-Webster Inc. >> >> However, I suspect that definition (2) exists only in English, and not >> in the mutant language with a vague resemblance to English that we >> Americans speak . . . >> >> -- Adam > >I was mightily confused by the thread, having never seen "tuition" used in the >sense of definition (3) other than as "tuition fees"... and I've lived the US. >I suspect I am not alone! :-) > >Mark Well!! I didn't think I was going to start World War III. DWS uderstood perfectly, and gave me an answer some time ago." For tuition" as I use it means "for instruction", which in this case has absolutely nothing to do with UKP or USdollars or Francs or any other currency. Simply a free talk given to club members on the rules and etiquette of the game. If I was going to use the laws to pay for something I would say " which we could use as currency" or " with which we could barter". It would be an interesting excersise to study those who would consider a copy of TFLB, or a quiz on the contents, as treasure beyond imagination, coveted by those with some other information to sell. I agree with Mark, "to pay tuition", is a corruption of "to pay tuition fees", whatever the lingo! Does Adam mean that the other side of the pond, if I said " I am having a driving lesson today", I would follow this with, "I will pay 20dollars tuition" instead of "20dollars for my tuition"? That my friend's question would be "How much is the tuition" rather than "How much is it for the tuition"? It certainly helps me to understand how and why we disagree on the interpreation of some of the laws. Please remember that I am Welsh, not English. My use of some expressions may be different from those used in London. Vitold should worry? I am supposed to be able to express myself in English, and I am not making myself easily understood! Sorry Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 28 19:34:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:34:55 +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 TAA27735 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:34:46 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h32.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id LAA05592; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:38:08 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36605FAE.141E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:40:14 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Quiz References: <01be1a5c$42930f80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Anne:) You wrote: "Well!! I didn't think I was going to start World War III. It certainly helps me to understand how and why we disagree on the interpreation of some of the laws. Please remember that I am Welsh, not English. My use of some expressions may be different from those used in London. Vitold should worry? I am supposed to be able to express myself in English, and I am not making myself easily understood!" It is my turn to console you - your English is perfect and quite understandable:) By the way - be so kind as to explain me meanings of the word "invidious". It was used at several posts (Grattan's, etc.) and I hardly understood it. But I guess that without this word I do not undersatnd these posts at all:) Thank you in advance, best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 29 08:01:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:01:25 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01301 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:01:16 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.188] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA07683; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:05:11 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36606589.22D65FD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:05:13 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bigfoot@idt.net CC: BLML Subject: Re: Tuna, on OKB, rules! References: <365B7D1B.118D0F75@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Irv We must distinguish between the "technical" problem and the "law" problem : The "law" is simple : if partner called - can't apply anymore Law 25. If the "Big Tasty Fish" checked and found that "technically" the partner called before the 1S bidder had the opportunity to type UNDO or stop or whatever - ok - IMO he is entitled to let restart the bidding , but there is no UI , because the "fault" was the offender's . I don't understand why the Big Fish changed score when he decided to give the bidder the chance to change his bid . Reconsidering the result after the board finish is not clever (diplomatic wording......) if there was no more very convincing information ........ Dany Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > IMPs east Pairs Board 22, Nov 24th, > 1998 > Dlr: East > Vul: E-W S KJ97 north east south > west > H 753 > D K4 > C AT53 pass pass 1S > north south pass 3S ("stop," said > west.) > > S 8654 S QT3 > H AQT9 H J62 Opening Lead: > D QT63 D 752 Result: > C 8 C KJ96 Score: , IMPs: > west Playing time: > > S A2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > 12 > H K84 N > D AJ98 E > C Q742 S > W > > This hand came up in the OKBridge Tourney this afternoon, and the > director (Tuna) was called. It seems that West inadvertently opened 1S, > and didn't realize his error until he saw his partner's 3S bid. This > appears to have some of the qualities of an L25 case, and I wonder how > the group sees it. > > Tony (the director) rolled the bidding back to west, who now changed his > opening bid to 1NT, which bought 2C-2D-3N as a final contract. Tony > THEN ruled that we (N-S) had UI, in the form of 4 spades in the east > hand, and skipped the board! Since 3NT made exactly twice, and went > down numerous times, I can't help feeling that we were deprived of a > chance for a good board. > > The UI ruling interests me. The opps made an error, providing the NOs > with information and we seem to have been penalized. It seems to me > that UI is something that I might know about my partner's hand, and the > opponents actually profited from their error. What does everyone think? > > Irv > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: (no subject) > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:20:05 -0800 > From: Irwin J Kostal > To: bigfoot@idt.net > > IMPs east Pairs Board 22 > Dlr: East morriswi > Vul: E-W S KJ97 north east south > west > H 753 luzifer morriswi carolynt > fcyw > D K4 > C AT53 pass pass 1D! > north south pass 1S pass 1NT > luzifer carolynt (all pass) > S 8654 S QT3 > H AQT9 H J62 Opening Lead: S8 > D QT63 D 752 Result: -1 > C 8 C KJ96 Score: -100, IMPs: -0.25 > west Playing time: 5:51 > fcyw > S A2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 10 11 12 > H K84 N S8 8 S6 4 S5 D3 T > A-HQ-H9-D6 T > D AJ98 E J A-C3 9 5 T 3 5 7 > S7 4 > C Q742 S Q 6 9 T-CK-CJ-HJ-H6 2 > S3 2 > W A-C2 Q-S2 4 7 4 K 8 > D8 9-DJ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 29 14:20:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:20:49 +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 OAA02003 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:20:43 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA27058; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:23:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811290323.TAA27058@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Quiz Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:23:47 -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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: -> By the way - be so kind as to explain me meanings of the word > "invidious". It was used at several posts (Grattan's, etc.) and I hardly > understood it. But I guess that without this word I do not undersatnd > these posts at all:) > Since I was one who used "invidious" recently, having chosen the word with care to describe the practice of assessing PPs indiscriminately, I'll provide the definition from *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary*: "Tending to excite odium, ill will, or envy; likely to give offense; especially, unjustly discriminating" Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 30 17:09:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:09:21 +1100 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 RAA07222 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:09:04 +1100 Received: from vmv (vmv.sandy.ru. [195.122.226.66]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id JAA29769 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:10:26 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <000901be1c27$86eaf540$42e27ac3@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Lead during the bidding Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:06:06 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk UGFpcnMsIEJkMSwgTiwgLQ0KQmlkZGluZzoNCk4gICAgRSAgICBTICAgIFcNCjFjIDFudCAgMnMg ICBwDQozYyBwICAgIDNoICAgIHANCjNudCBwICAgNGggICAgZGINCjRzICBwICAgIHAgICAgIGRi DQouLi4gICBwICAgIHANCg0KVyBsZWFkcyB3aXRoIHNtYWxsIGNsdWIgZmFjZSBkb3duIGFuZCBp biBhIGZldyBzZWNvbmRzIHR1cm5zIGl0IGZhY2UgdXAuIE4gc2FpZCB0aGF0IGhlIGhhc24ndCBi aWQgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGRibC4gQWxsIG90aGVyIHBsYXllcnMgdGhhdWdodCB0aGF0IE4gcGFzc2Vk IHRoZSBkb3VibGUuIFREIQ0K From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 30 17:47:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:47:38 +1100 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 RAA07284 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:47:32 +1100 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA19341 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 01:51:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 01:51:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811300651.BAA11567@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <000901be1c27$86eaf540$42e27ac3@vmv.sandy.ru> (sergei.litvak@writeme.com) Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak writes: > Pairs, Bd1, N, - > Bidding: > N E S W > 1c 1nt 2s p > 3c p 3h p > 3nt p 4h db > 4s p p db > ... p p > W leads with small club face down and in a few seconds turns it face > up. N said that he hasn't bid after the dbl. All other players thaught > that N passed the double. TD! Well, first I have to determine the facts. Since North didn't object to East's pass out of turn (and he should have called the TD even if South accepted it), I will rule that North passed. If North is ruled not to have passed, then East's pass out of turn is condoned by South's pass in turn. It is West's turn, and presumably he passes and the bidding now reverts to North since there were three passes depriving North of his right to call. East could be required to pass once and the club could become a major penalty card because of West's premature lead; however, it makes sense to waive this penalty because N-S are partly at fault. South believed that the auction was over. -- 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.